Finra warned investors that if the interest rates rise – as most pros expect – bond investors could be slammed by long duration, writes Dan Jamieson in a Feb. 14th., 2013 article for InvestmentNews.com

FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. in an investor alert, told investors that in the event of rising interest rates, “outstanding bonds, particularly those with a low interest rate and high duration may experience significant price drops.”

FINRA gave the example of a bond fund with 10-year duration will decrease in value by 10% if rates rise one percentage point, the alert warns.

FINRA added that bond-fund investors can find measures of duration in a bond fund’s fact sheet, and individual bond investors can check with their investment professionals, the bond’s issuer, or they can use an online calculator to get the figure.

Short duration doesn’t mean risk-free, the alert says.

“Bonds and bond funds are subject to inflation risk, call risk, default risk and other risk factors,” the warning says.

Bonds are not without risk, however in many instances bonds are presented as the safe alternative.

If you find yourself in this position, call Soreide Law Group for a free consultation on how to potentially recover your financial losses: 888-760-6552.

bonds price drop · brokerage supervisory deficiencies · brokers recommending risky investments · call risk in bonds · default risk in bonds · Duration of bonds rates rising · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · finra lawyer · FINRA warning on bonds · FINRA warns Bond Investors · fort lauderdale securities lawyer · high risk investments · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · inflation risk in bonds · Lars K. Soreide Soreide Law Group · low interest rate bonds with high duration · misrepresentation of bonds by brokers · risk in bond · risky bonds · risky investments · Unsuitable investments to elderly

Securities Lawyer, Lars Soreide of Soreide Law Group, PLLC, recently announced that he is investigating claims against Linsco Private Ledger (LPL Financial) for investors who have suffered losses by former LPL broker Alberto Neira.

The clients of former LPL representative Alberto Neira were solicited to invest in the now defunct Silver Oak Leasing – a business operated by Alberto Neira that was allegedly engaged in the financing of luxury cars in Southern California. These clients suffered a complete loss on their investment in Silver Oak Leasing.

FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, permanently barred Albert Neira in December, 2012, for defrauding at least fourteen investors, many of whom were LPL customers at the time they were solicited to invest in Silver Oak Leasing. This is also known as a selling away scheme. The following passage is from FINRA’s website: “Between July 1, 2008, and January 18, 2011, Respondent (Neira) made recommendations that resulted in over $2 million in investments in Silver Oak to at least 14 firm customers. These investments included stock and promissory notes. The customers understood that the invested funds were to raise money for the general use of Silver Oak’s business enterprise. The sales were conducted privately and not through Respondent’s employing firm. Respondent failed to disclose these securities transactions to his firm.”

If you invested in Silver Oak Leasing with broker, Alberto Neira, or with LPL Financial, call Soreide Law Group at: 888-760-6552, or you may visit our website and complete the online form at: http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

Alberto Neira barred by FINRA · Alberto Neira LPL broker · Alberto Neira Silver Oak Leasing losses · brokerage supervisory deficiencies · brokers recommending risky investments · failure to supervise brokers · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · finra lawyer · fort lauderdale securities fraud lawyer · high risk investments · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · Lars Soreide · Linsco Private Ledger · LPL · LPL Financial LLC · risky investments · selling away scheme · Silver Oak Leasing · Silver Oak Leasing losses · Soreide Law Group PLLC · Stock fraud lawyer · Unsuitable investments to elderly

Nicholas Rowe and his firm, Focus Capital Wealth Management, Inc. of Bedford, New Hampshire, were found liable in a case alleging negligence, civil fraud, and other misdeeds, involving the sale of risky ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) to nine investors, according to a ruling by a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel. Some of these investors were in their fifties and sixties, including two widows. Rowe was ordered to pay $1.8 million to the investors.

The Reuters article goes on to explain that leveraged and inverse ETFs were designed to amplify short-term returns by using debt and derivatives and are considered more suitable for professional traders than for long-term investors or anyone does not want a high-risk portfolio. In 2009, FINRA and other regulators began issuing warnings about the sale of leveraged and inverse ETFs because they worried that brokers were selling them to buy-and-hold investors – a strategy likely to cause heavy losses.

The Reuters article says that FINRA arbitration may be the last hope for some investors whose advisers guided them to leveraged and inverse ETFs and then mismanaged the investments.

Investors in the Rowe case were all heavily concentrated in leveraged and inverse ETFs. That strategy is nearly guaranteed to lead to losses, since the investments effectively require betting on whether the market is going up or down.

Securities Lawyer, Lars K. Soreide, of Soreide Law Group, PLLC, represents clients nationwide. If you invested with Nicholas Rowe or Focus Capital Wealth Management, Inc., or had losses in other leveraged and inverse ETFs, call: 888-760-6552, or you may visit our website and complete the online form at: http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

brokerage supervisory deficiencies · brokers recommending risky investments · elder abuse in investments · exchange traded fund · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · finra securities arbitration · Focus Capital Wealth Mangement Inc · Ft. Lauderdale Securities Lawyer · high risk investments · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · inverse ETFs · Lars K. Soreide Soreide Law Group · Leveraged ETFs · leveraged inverse ETF's · Nicholas Rowe · Nicholas Rowe Bedford New Hampshire · Nicholas Rowe fined by FINRA for ETF · Unsuitable investments to elderly

Recently, a New York City man working as a broker/dealer in Stamford, Connecticut, has been charged with securities fraud, according to a news release from U.S. Attorney David B. Fein’s office.

Jesse Litvak, 38, while working in the Stamford office of Jefferies & Co., is suspected of scheming to defraud by misrepresenting transactions either with the seller’s asking price to the buyer, or the buyer’s price to the seller, the release said. The difference in the price paid would be kept for Jefferies, the release said.

The release also said that he is suspected of misrepresenting bonds to buyers in Jefferies inventory by offering them for sale by third parties he made up, the release said. If he did this he was then able to charge the buyer an extra commission, the release said.

Jesse Litvak is suspected of doing this with residential mortgage-based securities, and allegedly defrauded six Securities Public-Private Investment Program funds and multiple private funds for $2 million, the release said. Litvak was also was charged with 11 counts of securities fraud, one count of Troubled Asset Relief Program fraud, and four counts of making false statements to the federal government, the release said.

If you feel you have been involved in this or any other rip-off to the investors by broker/dealers, call Lars Soreide of Soreide Law Group, PLLC, for a free consultation on how to potentially recover your losses. To speak with an attorney call 888-760-6552, or visit our website and complete our online form at: http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

broker charging excessive commissions · broker theft from customers · brokerage supervisory deficiencies · brokers recommending risky investments · elder abuse in investments · failure to supervise brokers · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · Ft. Lauderdale Securities Lawyer · high risk investments · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · Jefferies & Co Stamford CT · Jesse Litvak · Jesse Litvak Jeffries & Co · Lars K. Soreide · Lars Soreide · Lars Soreide attorney ripoff repairs · Lars Soreide fixes rip-offs · Lars Soreide Florida Attorney repairs rip-off · misrepresentation of bonds by brokers · mortgage based securities · Soreide Law Group PLLC · unreasonable charges of commissions by brokers · Unsuitable investments to elderly

Last week LPL Financial Holdings agreed to pay $2.5 million in fines and restitution for improperly supervising brokers who sold non-traded real estate investment trusts. (Please note that LPL neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing.) These non-traded REITs are high-yielding and very popular. These non-traded REITs have jumped about 50% since 2009, to $65 billion. They are difficult to track and value, since they don’t trade on public exchanges.
Below is a list of REITs, some of which LPL Financial Holdings were fined for allegedly selling with improper supervision to clients who were not interested in taking the risks with their conservative portfolios.

American Realty Capital Daily Net Asset Value, Inc.
American Realty Capital Global Trust, Inc.
ARC Retail Centers of America
American Realty Capital Trust IV, Inc.
ARC Healthcare Trust
American Realty Capital Phillips Edison
Shopping Center REIT
American Realty Capital Trust, Inc. Update
American Realty Capital New York Recovery REIT
ARC Property Trust, Inc.
Arciterra National REIT, LP
Behringer Harvard Multifamily REIT II, Inc.
Bluerock Enhanced Multifamily Trust, Inc.
Carter Validus Mission Critical REIT
Clearwater Opportunity REIT
CNL Global Growth Trust, Inc.
CNL Global Income Trust, Inc.
Cornerstone Core Properties REIT, Inc.
Hines Global REIT, Inc. 2012
Inland Real Estate Income Trust, Inc.
Inland Diversified REIT
Lightstone Value Plus REIT II Update
NetREIT Dubose Model Home REIT, Inc.
NetREIT $200,000,000 Stock Offering Update
O’Donnell Strategic Industrial REIT, Inc.
Preferred Apartment Communities, Inc.
RREEF Property Trust, Inc.
UCM US RMBS Opportunity REIT, Inc.
US Apartment Investors 2010, Inc.
Wells Core Office Income REIT

If you purchased these or other REITs, and sustained investment losses due to your stock broker or financial advisor’s recommendations, call Soreide Law Group, PLLC, for a free consultation on how to potentially recover your losses. To speak with an attorney call 888-760-6552, or visit our website and complete our online form at: http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

brokerage supervisory deficiencies · brokers recommending risky investments · clients with low risk portfolios · failure to supervise brokers · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · finra lawyer · finra securities arbitration · fort lauderdale securities fraud lawyer · high risk investments · high-risk private placements · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · Lars K. Soreide Soreide Law Group · LPL · LPL Financial LLC · LPL fined over REIT sales · LPL REIT investors · LPL sale to elderly · LPL sued by Massachusetts · non-traded real estate investment trusts · Non-traded REIT loss lawyer · nontraded REIT loss · Nontraded REITs · Real Estate Investment Trust · securities lawyer · Unsuitable investments to elderly

In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 11, 2013, Matthew Heimer writes that ever since the Federal Reserve started pushing interest rates to new lows, it’s been a common theme for retirees and other conservative investors accepting more risk to get a decent income from their portfolios. Last week LPL Financial Holdings agreed with state regulators to pay $2.5 million in fines and restitution for improperly supervising brokers who sold non-traded real estate investment trusts. (LPL neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing.) Non-traded REITs are high-yielding and popular – assets invested in the product have jumped about 50% since 2009, to $65 billion. But they’re for investors to track and value, since they don’t trade on public exchanges.

As Nathaniel Popper reports this week in the New York Times, opaque investments are becoming increasingly popular with less-sophisticated investors, leaving the investors overexposed to risks they don’t understand or vulnerable to fraud. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently issued a notice expressing concern about products like these that could prove “potentially unsuitable and otherwise problematic for retail investors.” Other investments on FINRA’s list include business development companies, which invest in the debt of small privately held businesses, and private placement securities, which represent direct investments in such firms.

If you sustained investment losses due to your stock broker or financial advisor’s recommendations regarding non-traded REITs, private placements, or other complex products, call for a free consultation on how to potentially recover your losses. To speak with an attorney call 888-760-6552, or visit our website and complete our online form at: http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

Soreide Law Group, PLLC., representing investors nationwide before FINRA the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

brokerage supervisory deficiencies · brokers recommending risky investments · elder abuse in investments · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · finra lawyer · fort lauderdale securities fraud lawyer · high risk for long term investors · high risk investments · high risk REITs · high-risk private placements · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · Lars K. Soreide · LPL · LPL Financial LLC · LPL fined over REIT sales · LPL nontraded REITs · LPL REIT investors · LPL sale to elderly · LPL sued by Massachusetts · non-traded real estate investment trusts · Non-traded REIT loss lawyer · Non-traded REITs · private placements · REIT · Soreide Law Group PLLC · Unsuitable investments to elderly

Financial regulators are confronting investor frauds that are giving retirement savers steep losses on complex products that until a few years ago were aimed only at the most sophisticated investors, writes Nathaniel Popper in a New York Times article from Feb. 11, 2013.

These victims are among the millions of Americans whose mutual funds and stock portfolios fell in the financial crisis, and who started searching for ways to make better returns. Many investors put money into speculative bets promoted by aggressive financial advisers. These investments included private loans to young companies and shares in bundles of commercial real estate properties.

“Since the crisis, we’ve seen more and more people reaching out into different types of exotic investments that are a big concern to us,” said William F. Galvin, the Massachusetts secretary of the commonwealth.

Wednesday, Feb. 6th., 2013, Mr. Galvin’s office ordered one of the nation’s largest brokerage firms, LPL Financial, to pay $2.5 million for improperly selling the real estate bundles, known as nontraded REITs, or real estate investment trusts, to hundreds of Massachusetts residents from 2006 to 2009, in some cases overloading clients’ accounts with them.

J. Bradley Bennett, chief of enforcement at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA, said that for the last two years, 10 staff members have looked at the “proliferation of these products, to understand how they are being sold.”

“It’s got our attention,” he said. “We recognize the trends.”

Brokers are eager to sell these investments because they often bring in higher commissions. Several of these products hold out the promise of higher returns. Many of the investors in these complex products have filed claims with FINRA.

Private placements have been on the list of top enforcement concerns published by the national organization of state securities regulators every year since 2007. The private placements are supposed to be available only to wealthy, sophisticated investors, but several loopholes have allowed them to end up in the portfolios of less sophisticated retirement savers.

REITs have been one of the most heavily sold products. The new version, nontraded — the type that got LPL Financial in trouble in Massachusetts — can be bought and sold only in private transactions.

The outstanding amount of such nontraded REITs grew to $65 billion last year, from $43 billion in 2009. FINRA also issued a $14 million fine in October against David Lerner Associates, a large purveyor of nontraded REITs in the New York area.

If you or a family member have sustained investment losses due to your stock broker or financial advisor’s recommendations regarding non-traded REITs, private placements, or other complex products, call for a free consultation on how to potentially recover your losses. To speak with an attorney call 888-760-6552, or visit our website and complete our online form at: http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

Soreide Law Group, PLLC., representing investors nationwide before FINRA the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

brokerage supervisory deficiencies · brokers recommending risky investments · brokers selling complex products · complex products sold by brokers · Complex REITs · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · finra lawyer · fort lauderdale securities lawyer · high risk investments · high-risk private placements · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · Lars Soreide · LPL Financial LLC · LPL nontraded REITs · LPL sued by Massachusetts · Non traded REIT loss · non-traded real estate investment trusts · Nontraded REIT loss lawyer · Nontraded REITs · private placements · REITs · securities lawyer · Soreide Law Group PLLC · Unsuitable investments to elderly

Crystallex has commenced a proceeding under chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in order to ensure that relevant CCAA orders are enforced in the United States. Many stock brokers recommended CRYXF to their clients as an undervalued mining company that is poised for a big jump. This investment may not have been suitable for conservative investors. If your stock broker recommended a significant investment into Crystallex recently you may be able to recover some or all of your investment losses.

On December 23, 2011, Crystallex received an initial order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granting CCAA protection until January 21, 2012. Proceedings by creditors cannot be continued or commenced without the consent of the Company and Ernst & Young Inc. (the Monitor) or leave of the Court. The Court extended the stay until March 23, 2012. The Court approved the terms of an interim bridge loan for Crystallex in the amount of US$3.125 million. The bridge loan is a secured, short term loan, due the earlier of April 16, 2012 or the first draw on a debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing facility, and is intended to provide the Company with working capital while it continues to pursue DIP financing and progress its arbitration claim.

Crystallex International Corporation is a Canadian based mining company, with a focus on acquiring, exploring, developing and operating mining projects. Crystallex has operated an open pit mine in Uruguay and developed and operated three gold mines in Venezuela.

Call (888) 760-6552 if your stock broker recommended you purchase Crystallex CRYXF.

broker recommending risky investments · brokerage supervisory deficiencies · brokers recommending risky investments · Crystallex gold mines · Crystallex International Corporation · Crystallex loss lawyer · Crystallex losses · CRYXF · CRYXF Canadian mining company · CRYXF loss lawyer · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · finra lawyer · finra securities arbitration lawyer · fort lauderdale securities lawyer · gold mining stock · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · Lars K. Soreide · mining project stock loss · mining stock · mining stock loss lawyer · risky investments · securities fraud lawyer · securities lawyer · Soreide Law Group PLLC · undervalued mining stock

In an article, Feb. 7, 2013, in the New York Post, it was reported that (broker-dealer owner), Anastasios “Tommy” Belesis’ firm, John Thomas Financial, is being investigated by the FBI, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. (FINRA).

Mr. Belesis has made many media appearances on cable business/financial shows.

According to FINRA’s BrokerCheck, S.W. Bach & Co. fired him in 2005 for “inaccurate representation of identity to customer.” In 2001, a client sued him and a firm for $750,000 for churning and a FINRA arbitration panel later awarded the client $259,000. Mr. Belesis and firms he’s worked for have settled two other FINRA arbitration claims for nearly $100,000. Belesis paid $46,000 as his share of the settlements.

John Thomas’ FINRA record shows failures to disclose fees to clients about transaction charges. Arkansas Securities Department fined John Thomas $25,000 last year for allegedly not disclosing to clients handling fees for stock orders. The Connecticut Banking Department fined the firm $20,000 over similar failures on fee disclosures, and FINRA fined it $275,000 for “postage and handling” violations.

If you have been a client of Anastasios “Tommy” Belesis, and/or his firm, John Thomas Financial, and experienced financial losses call a securities lawyer at (888) 760-6552 or visit http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

Anastasios Belesis · broker churning accounts · brokerage supervisory deficiencies · brokers recommending risky investments · failure to disclose fees by broker to client · failure to supervise brokers · fee disclosures by bokers · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · FINRA brokercheck · finra lawyer · finra securities arbitration · fort lauderdale securities fraud lawyer · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · investigation into John Thomas Financial · John Thomas Financial investigation · Lars K. Soreide Soreide Law Group · SEC · Securities and Exchange Commission · securities arbitraton lawyer · securities lawyer · Stock fraud lawyer · Tommy Belesis · Tommy Belesis John Thomas Financial

In a FINRA NTM 13-07 posted last Thursday on its website, FINRA asked for comment on an updated proposal that would keep the 5% guideline in place.

The action follows complaints about an earlier proposal to eliminate the 5% rule for markups and markdowns.

In other words, any FINRA broker/dealer can make up to 5% commission on the front and back end of every trade. This “commission” is hidden on the order ticket called a mark up. Many investors look at the transaction fee which is a usually a low flat consistent fee that they see on every ticket. A mark up is when firms add a cost to the price per share that is their profit. Look for it at the bottom of the order ticket in fine print where it will tell you the per share mark up and multiply by the number of shares you bought and suddenly the $25 you thought you were paying per trade just shot up to over $1,000.00. Yes, the industry is in it to make money for themselves, not for you.

“A majority of the comments received on the initial proposal opposed the elimination of the 5% policy,” FINRA said in the notice. “These commenters stated that the 5% policy generally has been effective in regulating broker-dealers for over 70 years and eliminating it would reduce investor protection.” It is only logical that the industry will oppose what keeps them rich and the investors poor.

In its initial proposal — floated nearly two years ago — FINRA had promised updated guidance to replace the 5% threshold, but commenters warned against eliminating it without setting a new standard.

Nevertheless, industry attorneys don’t like the old 5% limit, which dates from 1943.

It’s really is sending a bad message to member firms that a 5% markup or markdown is generally OK.

FINRA examiners actually use something closer to a 2% to 3% markup, observers say, and FINRA has consistently said the 5% rule is a guideline only.

“It’s like charades; you don’t know what they’re looking for,” Ms. Baird said.

If you have been charged excessive mark ups or mark downs call a securities lawyer at (888) 760-6552 or visit http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

5% broker dealer markup rule · 5% commission by brokers · 5% markup and markdown FINRA · brokerage supervisory deficiencies · complaints about stock markups · eliminate 5% policy with brokers · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · FINRA end 5% markup rule · finra lawyer · FINRA NTM 13-07 · finra securities arbitration lawyer · FINRA update 5% threshold · fort lauderdale securities lawyer · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · investor check tickets for markup · Lars Soreide · securities lawyer · Soreide Law Group PLLC