Just Like I Wrote It

The other day, I went into one of the major banks where I had opened an estate account for a client who passed away. We took care of everything for the client and their beneficiaries and I needed to close the account. I had originally considered opening this account with Schwab, but their review process would have taken three weeks and we needed to close on some real estate sooner than that, so I was forced to go to one of the major banks.

Just so happens, we have some personal accounts at this bank and when I sat down to close the account, the lady tried to sell me everything under the sun. This major bank doesn't do personal loans any more, but they will gladly give you a credit card. She tried to get me to open a credit card account.

I said "No thanks."

Then she tried to get me to take cash out of one of my credit card accounts.

"Why the hell do I want to run up my credit card bill?", I thought to myself.

I said "No thanks."

Then, she tried to get me to refinance my home equity loan for about 1.5% higher than my current rate.

Again, I said "No thanks."

Then, she tried to get me to refinance my home loan which was about 1% higher than my current rate.

"No!", I said.

She finally gave up and closed the account after wasting about 10 minutes of my time. She could tell I was getting perturbed.

This is the typical experience at a major bank today. I hate the damn bank and everything it represents. I would not even have the credit card at this bank if it wasn't for the bank buying my former credit card company. I never even opened the credit card with this bank. They just forced me into their devilish den. I may have to move that credit card account now after that fiasco.

While she was giving me this sales pitch, I couldn't help but notice an older man in the back office with a young stockbroker from a major brokerage firm that just so happens to be owned by the bank. Imagine that. This poor man was around 70 years old and he was doing business in the absolute worst place possible.

Hadn't he read my book? Of course he hasn't. Otherwise, he would have never set foot in that guy's office.

Doesn't he know that these stockbroker's are in business to generate the most revenue possible from him?

Why on earth would you ever do business with a bank owned brokerage firm?

It is so asinine. I am sure that if I reviewed this guy's investment statements, I would see variable annuities, loaded mutual funds, non-publicly traded REIT's and UIT's. Why? Because these are the products that make the bank the most money!

If you do your investment business with a bank or a bank owned brokerage firm, then STOP IT!!! They are ripping you off. For proof, all you have to do is look at your own statements. If you own variable annuities, loaded mutual funds, non-publicly traded REIT's and UIT's, then congratulations you been had. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you need to wise up and quit letting these people rip you off.

When I went into this bank to close it out, I knew what to expect. I knew they would try and sell me everything under the sun. The poor old man was getting his head taken off in commissions and lack of liquidity and for what? I will tell you for what. The profits of the bank. They don't give a flying you know what about their clients. I don't care what line of BS you hear or what frilly commercials you see on television. They are in business to make as much money as they can off of you. Don't you ever forget it.

The only place to do your investment business is with an Independent Registered Investment Adviser who is not affiliated with a bank, brokerage firm or insurance company.

Of course, when little unknown guys like me write books, it is so hard to get any traction on book sales unless you are somebody famous. In my opinion, if a book does something to help you, then it doesn't make a hill of beans who wrote it. What may surprise people to know is that my book, "Meet Wally Street. The Reason You're Stupid." would have warned the 70 year old gentlemen never to do business with a bank owned brokerage firm period. In other words, it would have helped him!

I described this exact scenario to watch out for in my book. This is how it always is with me. I will write about something and read about other people's horror stories describing it later. Except in this case, I saw it with my own two eyes. It was sad to see let me tell you. I feel sorry for that elderly gentleman.

If you want a Christmas gift idea, then give people my book. You will save them a lot of money and headaches. It is only $3.99 on electronic devices and only $19.99 if you are old fashioned and want a real book. That's a bargain compared to the money that you will save them.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Section 7103. Establishment of a Fiduciary Duty

Okay. They are finally getting close to passing this law, but it includes a study that may delay its implementation for a few years. It seems that the government wants disclosure for retail customers, but they do not know what a retail customer is, so they have to have a study. In addition, they want disclosure for retail customers, but they have to have a study to determine what to put in that disclosure to retail customers.

Right now, their definition of a retail customer is:

(A) receives personalized investment advice about securities from a broker or dealer; and
(B) uses such advice primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

Of course they are not sure about this, so there will be a study to determine the proper definition of a retail customer.

A couple of things jump out at me in this definition. Registered Investment Advisers must be exempt, because they are not listed in Section (A) above. (See page 1278 of 1705 lines 7, 8 & 9)

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4173rfs.txt.pdf

I guess that a retail customer is something that only brokers or dealers work with, not investment advisers according to this bill.

The second thing that I noticed is that in Section (B) above, there is no provision for "businesses, charitable organizations, pension plans, or trusts." I guess the House Financial Services Committee does not think that these need the same protections as their definition of retail customers.

Another curious thing that I find in this bill is that the term "customer" does not include an investor in a private fund managed by an investment adviser, where such private fund has entered into an advisory contract with such adviser. Excuse me, but would not the scandulous Mr. Bernard Madoff be considered a manager of a private fund? Or, would not the feeder funds that feed Mr. Bernard Madoff money, be allowed to continue business as usual as a result of this exemption?

Of course, the more I read into this Section 7103, the more errors that I find. Now, I see later in the bill that they added investment advisers to the definition of a retail customer. See page 1280 line 10. This must be a staffing mistake. Why is it not on page 1278, but it is on page 1280? Looks like the makings of a Technical Corrections Bill that will follow. Unless of course, someone reads this blog and fixes it beforehand.

Later in the bill, brokers or dealers are going to be subject to not only FINRA rules, but also the same rules that investment advisers are subject to upholding. Wall Street firms must have slipped on this one. I am surprised that they did not lobby out of this one. After all, there are a ton of brokers out there and dealers too, who have blemishes on their record. Routinely, these brokers and dealers have not had to tell their customers about their backgrounds. Apparently, now, if they are subject to the same rules as investment advisers, then they will not only have to tell their customers about their backgrounds, they will have to do so in writing. This goes for insurance agents and insurance company broker/dealers. This will be a interesting development. I know several advisors who have fines, suspensions and the like on the records, but they never tell their customers about them. What do you want to bet that these type of unscrupulous advisers fail in their efforts of full disclosures?

This rule ends with the granting of the SEC to obtain a study to determine what a retail customer is, what potential conflicts of interest are presented, the differences between investment advice from various providers like brokers, dealers or investment adivsers. Then, after the completion of the study, the law gives the right to the SEC to implement the rules.

The major points of this study that they need to clarifiy are the following:

1) what is a retail customer? (I'm not kidding.)
2) what is the range of products and services sold or provided to retail customers and are the sellers under the watchful eye of the SEC?
3) how are these products or services sold to retail customers, what are the fees and conflicts of interests that may arise as a result?
4) what should customers receive prior to purchasing these products or services and who is the appropriate person or entity to provide such information?
5) they want to ensure that reasonably similar products and services are subject to similar treatment and disclsoure requirements.

Did you notice that I did not mention anything about a fiduciary duty? Well, the Wall Street firms may believe that they have dodged a bullet, but guess what? The fact that this bill, like I mentioned above, subjects brokers or dealers to the same rules as investment advisers, this means that they will be subject to the fiduciary duty requirements. Whoops! Wall Street needs some new lobbyists. They failed to catch this one.

Boy. I do not know about you, but I feel a lot safer now for "retail customers," don't you? I sure am glad we have the government to take care of us. Yes, I am being facetious.

Remember When I Said...

In a prior blog post, I listed my Do Not Buy List of products typically sold by broker/dealers and their registered representatives, but sometimes sold by unscrupulous investment advisors and non-registered people purporting to be investment advisors. The main reason that they sell these is because they typically pay large up front commssions in the 8 to 10% range of the initial investment.

With this article, you will receive a bonus education regarding investments on my Do Not Buy List. Two of the investments on my Do Not Buy List, both Promissory Notes and Private Placements are mentioned in the article. See this link for the sad story:

http://www.fa-mag.com/fa-news/5116-securities-america-charged-with-misleading-investors.html

Once again, I have been proven correct that these so called "investments" belong squarely on my Do Not Buy List. By the way, do not buy means do not buy ever!

One of these days, people may actually save themselves the misery and listen to what I have to say.

Why Broker/Dealers Can Never Be Fiduciaries

I suppose with this new law being worked on by the House Financial Services Committee that this will open the flood gates for financial advisers who want to do want is in the best interest of the client. In my prior post, I show the one quote that will kill it for consumers.

Let us assume that I want to go to work for a major broker/dealer. I would name one but who knows what they are calling themselves these days. I cannot keep up with all the name changes and mergers. Back to my premise of wanting to go to work for one of these firms. (Why, I do not know.) I read the Investor Protection Act of 2009 and notice that I can finally do what is in the best interest of the client. So, when that mean old branch manager tells me that I have to produce $300,000 in gross revenue in order to keep my job, all that I have to do is remind him that that is not in the best interest of my clients. The branch manager will not be able to touch me. I can keep my job even if I only produce $30,000 in revenue. After all, a production quota is in the best interest of the firm, not the client. Therefore, Mr. Branch Manger, you can take that production requirement and stick it.

Now, do you really believe that broker/dealers are going to dispense with revenue production requirements? Neither do I.

You cannot have revenue production requirements and do what is in the best interest of the client. Period.

This is why the Investor Protection Act of 2009 is a bunch of bunk and all a show. I can see loophole after loophole in it. The stupid bill conflicts itself, saying one thing and contradicting it later. Obviously, they have not read this bill either.

The broker/dealers have won, yet again. Proof positive that Congress does whatever Wall Street wants them to do. After all, that is where the money is.

I say vote them all out. Let's get someone in Washington who can read!

Broker Dealers win the Lobbying War - Consumers Lose

The House Bill known as the Investor Protection Act of 2009 has been watered down as feared. The Broker/Dealers and Wall Street with all their lobbying money have won the war.

Here is a portion of the bill:


"The receipt of compensation based on commission shall not, in and of itself, be considered a violation of such standard applied to a broker or dealer."

So, what they are saying is that as long as you charge 5.75% commission to your client and you tell them, then as an adviser, you have nothing to worry about. You will have complied with the law. The fact that you are selling them some piece of crap investment does not matter.

Sorry consumers. You lose again to Wall Street.

A Fiduciary Standard Watered Down

There is no doubt that the fiduciary standard for anyone who renders investment advice would be a good thing. However, in the Obama Administration's White Paper, on page 72 to be exact, there is a statement that concerns me greatly. It reads:

prohibiting certain conflicts of interests and sales practices that are contrary to the interests of investors.

You can read it here: http://www.financialstability.gov/docs/regs/FinalReport_web.pdf

What bothers me is the word "certain" in that statement. My interpretation, based on my experience, would mean that selling from broker/dealer inventory would be one of the conflicts of interest that they are referring to. Broker dealers currently are allowed to buy stocks of various companies and keep them in inventory. They typically buy companies that are widely held. When their customers want to buy that same stock, then the broker/dealers sell them the stock from their inventory. The broker/dealer may have bought the stock at a lower price and sold it from inventory to the client at a higher price. If they do not have the stock at a lower price, then they let the customer buy it outside of their inventory. The do not normally sell their inventory positions at a loss. It is easier for them to let the client buy it from the exchanges. Obviously, they stand to make more money by selling from inventory.

I believe that broker/dealers would gladly give up selling from inventory for the ability to be a fiduciary under the forthcoming watered down rules. What we will see, in regard to the fiduciary standard, is that broker/dealers and their FINRA registered representatives will be able to continue doing business as usual. They will only have to disclose their conflicts of interest, then they can continue selling commission based products instead of fee only investment advice in a client's best interest.

The tactic being pushed to the media from Mary Shapiro, SEC Chairman is that broker/dealers and investment adviser's services are "substantially identical" as far as the public is concerned.

See this article from Financial Planning's web site for comments from Mary Shapiro:
http://www.financial-planning.com/news/schapiro-fiduciary-standard-sec-2662329-1.html?ET=financialplanning:e447:1882177a:&st=email

This could not be further from the truth. Besides, the fact that the consumer is not able to distinguish between a FINRA registered representative and an investment adviser is because of the "solely incidential" rule. The solely incidental rule, sometimes called the "Merrill Lynch" rule is the rule that opened the flood gates allowing FINRA registered representatives the ability to wear two hats. When they want to sell products, they slide the brokerage agreement in front of the client, all the while neglecting to mention any conflicts of interest. By wearing the FINRA hat, they do not have to disclose conflicts of interest. They can also wear the hat of an investment adviser. This is why they are known as dually registered (wearing the more profitable FINRA hat at the time of the transaction, of course.)

You rarely see a dually registered FINRA sales person as a 100% fee only investment adviser. They have to hit their sales quotas to keep their offices. Most FINRA broker/dealers have as their sales quotas upwards of $250,000 in revenue per year and higher. If you do the math, then you will see that in order to produce $250,000 in revenue as a 100% fee only advisor for the FINRA broker/dealer, then this means that this FINRA registered representative would have to bring in net new assets each and every year of $16,666,666.67. This is using 1.5% as the annual fee for the calculation. ($16,666,666.67 x 1.5% = $250,000.) Let me assure you, very few FINRA registered representatives can do this each and every year. I can promise you that FINRA broker/dealers are not going to lower their yearly sales quotas.

As a result, my educated guess is that we will see a watered down fiduciary standard that allows FINRA registered representatives to still wear two hats and still "pretend" to do things in a client's best interest. It will be even worse if FINRA itself is allowed to be the regulator of registered investment advisers. That would be the nail in the coffin for consumers of financial services. Wasn't the goal here to protect consumers?

You can read more about it in my book, Keep Your Assets. Take My Advice.