Wolper

Just a week ago, I ran a post about FINRA’s Sanction Guidelines, suggesting that they appear to have no relevance anymore, given the vast disparity between fines that FINRA is actually imposing in settled cases, on the one hand, and the supposed maximum fines described in the Sanction Guidelines, on the other. In an excellent

As those who know me well are already too aware, rarely does a day go by without some action by a securities regulator that causes me to whine and complain endlessly about a crazy rule or the manner in which it has been applied to my clients, who are, by and large, broker-dealers and the

It may be the ultimate example of the heavy price that a BD pays for being subject to FINRA regulation, and it happens all the time. Broker-dealer A decides to cease operations, for whatever reason, so it files a Form BDW (which, technically speaking, is a request by the BD to withdraw its FINRA membership

Anyone who’s handled FINRA arbitrations is well familiar with panelists who regularly respond to evidentiary objections by overruling them, but with the admonition that they will only give whatever weight, if any, to the evidence that they deem appropriate. While that can sometimes be frustrating, it is understandable. The Federal Arbitration Act, and the many

I have discussed in prior blogs some issues with the process of registering individuals, and ensuring that information on U-4 is complete and accurate. To some degree, the debate is a bit silly, if the question is whether there is enough information provided on BrokerCheck.

There is a real problem, however, one that is much

All the numbers are up!

I read with great interest the recent flurry of articles in the financial news, including one appearing on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, about the supposed flaws with FINRA’s BrokerCheck due to the fact that it omits from public view some items, e.g., certain misdemeanor convictions and financial issues (unsatisfied liens