1. Misalignment of Interests: While RIAs are held to a fiduciary standard by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, this does not entirely eliminate the risk of self-interest affecting an RIA’s advice. For instance, RIAs might favor only those investment products from firms that are paying significant commissions to the RIA for selling that product. This means there is a significant potential conflict of interest causing an RIA to recommend the same small set of investment products to every potential client.
2. Limited Product Offering: Many RIAs have a limited range of investment products due to affiliations with certain investment companies. This could mean you may not have access to the full spectrum of investment options that might be more suitable for your retirement needs.
3. Lack of Transparency: Even though RIAs are required to disclose all material facts to their clients, the complexity of the investment products such as annuities and life insurance products may result in you not fully understanding certain investments, the adviser’s commission for selling a specific product, or the risks involved in an investment strategy recommended by the RIA.
4. Qualifications and Experience: RIA’s expertise and experience can vary significantly. While some have extensive experience and hold multiple qualifications, others might be newer to the industry and less experienced. A less qualified RIA might not provide the best advice or understand the intricacies of complex investment strategies. Further, it is important to check your adviser at brokercheck.org and investigate their history. There are plenty of RIAs who are and RIA because they are unable to be a stockbroker (yes, there is a huge difference.)
5. Costs: RIAs usually charge a fee based on a percentage of assets under management, which might be higher than what you’d pay if you managed your investments independently or did not invest in annuities or life insurance products. Additionally, some RIAs may have hidden costs or might charge additional fees for specific services on top of the percentage fees they charge.
6. Poor Communication: In some cases, you might find that your RIA does not communicate effectively or regularly. This could leave you feeling uninformed about your investment decisions and progress toward your retirement goals.
7. Inadequate Personalization: Some RIAs might use a one-size-fits-all approach to investment strategies, which could result in your retirement assets not being fully able to meet your specific goals, risk tolerance, and timeline to, or in, retirement.
8. Limited Accessibility: Depending on the RIA, you may face issues regarding the accessibility of your adviser. If they manage a large number of clients, they might not be available when you need them, impacting your ability to make timely decisions. This applies to the investment products that RIAs may recommend to you because the investment products often have significant penalties for early ‘surrender’ and withdrawals, or even have no option to gain access to your money.
9. Risk Management: Not all RIAs are skilled in managing risk effectively. A failure to appropriately assess and mitigate risk could potentially result in substantial losses for your retirement portfolio.
10. Lack of Oversight: While RIAs are regulated by either the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or state regulators, this does not guarantee that your investments are safe. If the oversight body does not effectively regulate the RIA’s practices, your retirement assets could be at risk. Another oversight issue is that many RIA’s have no insurance to provide coverage to you for the RIA’s potential negligent or fraudulent handling of your account.

Despite these potential problems, it’s important to remember that many RIAs provide excellent service and can significantly contribute to the growth and protection of your retirement assets. The key is doing your due diligence in selecting an adviser. Check their qualifications, regulatory records, and references. Understand their fees, services offered and their investment philosophy. Good communication is essential, so ensure you feel comfortable discussing your needs and goals with them. Finally, always remember that it’s your retirement – stay informed and involved in the management of your assets.

Retirement planning can be a complex process, but knowing the potential pitfalls of entrusting your retirement assets to an RIA can help you make an informed decision that aligns with your retirement goals and financial situation.

A margin account is a type of investment account that allows investors to borrow funds from their broker-dealer to purchase securities. With a margin account, investors are able to leverage their trades by borrowing against the value of their portfolio. This means that investors can potentially earn larger returns on their investments but also exposes them to increased risk.

Broker-dealers have a number of responsibilities when it comes to margin accounts. One of their primary responsibilities is to ensure that investors understand the risks associated with trading on margin. This includes providing investors with a detailed explanation of how margin accounts work, the potential risks and benefits, and any costs or fees associated with trading on margin.

Another important responsibility of broker-dealers is to ensure that investors meet the eligibility requirements for trading on margin. These requirements may vary depending on the broker-dealer, but typically include factors such as an investor’s financial standing, trading history, and investment objectives. Broker-dealers must also maintain appropriate documentation to demonstrate that investors meet these requirements.

Once an investor has been approved for a margin account, broker-dealers are responsible for monitoring the account to ensure that the investor is maintaining sufficient collateral to cover any potential losses. This is known as a margin call. If the value of the investor’s portfolio falls below a certain level, the broker-dealer may issue a margin call, requiring the investor to deposit additional funds or securities to maintain the required level of collateral.

Broker-dealers should clarify for investors that the broker-dealer has almost unfettered control over the margin account. The broker-dealer, in the face of a ‘margin call,’ can raise money to meet the margin call by selling stocks from an investor’s account without first asking the investor. The broker dealer can even sell out the entire account without the client’s authority to protect the broker-dealer.

Broker-dealers are also subject to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) rules regarding margin accounts. These rules require broker-dealers to provide investors with a risk disclosure statement outlining the risks associated with trading on margin. Broker-dealers must also provide investors with regular statements outlining the status of their margin accounts, including the amount of margin used and any potential margin calls. Additionally, broker-dealers must also comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing their conduct, including the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

Another important responsibility that broker-dealers have is the responsibility to ensure that all investors are treated fairly and with integrity. This includes providing investors with accurate and timely information about their margin accounts, as well as ensuring that any fees or charges associated with trading on margin are reasonable and transparent. Broker-dealers must also have adequate safeguards in place to protect investors’ assets and prevent unauthorized access or theft.

Margin accounts offer investors the opportunity to potentially earn larger returns on their investments, but such accounts also come with increased risk. Broker-dealers have a number of important responsibilities when it comes to margin accounts, including ensuring that investors understand the risks and benefits of trading on margin, monitoring accounts to ensure sufficient collateral, preventing illegal trading practices, and complying with applicable regulations. As an investor, it’s important to work with a reputable broker-dealer who is committed to transparency, fairness, and integrity when it comes to margin accounts.

One of the biggest benefits of AI in investing is the speed and accuracy of decision-making. With the ability to process large amounts of data quickly, AI algorithms can analyze market trends and identify profitable investments much faster than human traders. In addition, AI algorithms can be programmed to avoid psychological biases that can negatively impact human traders’ decision-making. This could result in more rational and profitable investment decisions.

Another potential benefit of AI in investing is the ability to identify patterns in data that humans might miss. AI algorithms can analyze vast amounts of data, including financial data, news articles, and social media, to gain a comprehensive understanding of a company and its potential for growth. This can provide investors with a more accurate picture of a company’s financial health and future prospects, allowing them to make better investment decisions. AI algorithms can also be used to develop predictive models for stock market performance. These models can take into account historical data, market trends, and other factors to forecast future stock prices. This information can be extremely valuable for investors, as it can help them identify stocks that are likely to rise in value and make informed investment decisions.

A further benefit of AI in investing is the ability to automate the trading process. AI algorithms can be programmed to make trades based on predetermined criteria, such as a specific stock price or market trend. This can save investors time and effort, as they no longer have to spend hours researching and making investment decisions themselves. It can also reduce the risk of human error, as AI algorithms are not subject to the same emotional or psychological biases as human traders. Despite the many potential benefits of AI in investing, there are also some concerns about the technology. For example, there is a risk that AI algorithms could be programmed to make unethical or illegal trades. In addition, there is a risk that AI algorithms could be vulnerable to hacking or other forms of cyber-attack, which could result in significant financial losses for investors.

Another concern is the potential for AI algorithms to exacerbate market volatility. If a large number of investors use AI algorithms to make trades, this could lead to rapid shifts in stock prices and market trends. This could result in increased volatility, making it more difficult for investors to make informed investment decisions. Despite these concerns, it is clear that AI has the potential to greatly impact the world of investing in the stock market. The technology has the potential to bring about many benefits, including faster and more accurate decision-making, better predictive models, and more efficient trading processes. However, it is important for investors to be aware of the potential risks associated with AI and to carefully consider how they use the technology in their investment strategies. In conclusion, the impact of AI on the stock market will likely be significant in the coming years. While there are still some uncertainties about the technology, it is clear that AI has the potential to bring about many benefits for investors. However, it is important for investors to be aware of the potential risks associated with AI and to use the technology carefully in their investment strategies. As AI continues to evolve, it will be interesting to see how it continues to impact the world of investing and the stock market as a whole

Per the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), three of the most common investment fraud tactics employed by scammers in the United States are known as the “phantom riches” tactic, the “source credibility” tactic, and the “social consensus” tactic. [1]

Each tactic essentially functions by allowing the fraudster to build a false narrative surrounding their supposed investment opportunity, thereby garnering interest and ultimately investment dollars from unsuspecting investor victims.

The Phantom Riches Tactic

The “phantom riches” tactic involves enticing investors with the prospect of gaining an unattainable increase in wealth. [1] An example of this tactic in practice would be a fraudster telling a prospective investor “most of our investors are making $8-9,000 a month off this deal.” [2]

This tactic works by offering investors an opportunity they feel is simply too good to pass up. When fraudsters use the phantom riches tactic, they are lying about the investment opportunity so as to trick investors not into thinking the opportunity is too good to be true, but instead that the opportunity is too good to turn down.

Often, the fraudster also makes the alleged opportunity appear exceedingly easy for investors to become involved with. Prospective investors are led to believe not only that if they participate, their investment will earn them outstanding returns, but also that the investment opportunity requires almost no effort on the investor’s part.

In reality, the fraudster has fabricated the investment opportunity, and their promise of high returns will instead materialize as considerable losses to the investor.

The Source Credibility Tactic

When employing the source credibility tactic, fraudsters also engage in deceit, this time about their true identity and professional credentials. By communicating to the world that the fraudster is a graduate of a well-respected academic institution or has relevant professional experience and/or professional certifications and licenses, the fraudster places themselves in a respected societal position, albeit a patently fake one. [2]

Operating from this supposedly elevated social and professional tier, fraudsters have a much easier time convincing investors to fork over their money, and eventually lose it for good. While this tactic can be challenging to navigate, given the false impressions the fraudster is setting forth, there are many resources available online which prospective investors can use to confirm the identity and licenses actually earned by the purported professional.

The Social Consensus Tactic

Finally, the social consensus tactic involves stirring up investor interest in a scam by falsely stating that “everyone” or certain members of a group have already joined, and that those who have joined are making a great amount of money. [2] In reality, it is unlikely that many members of a group have joined the scheme – yet the mention of the community interest results in a greater sense of trust in the fraudster.

These tactics are just the first three of five main tactics that the SEC and FINRA warn investors to be aware of. Next week, this blog will cover the remaining two most common tactics used by investment fraudsters.

Remember that the first step in protecting assets is knowing the risks, like fraud, which they entail.

Sources: [1] https://www.finra.org/investors/protect-your-money/avoid-fraud [2] https://www.sec.gov/investor/seniors/outsmarting.pdf

By way of a brief overview, in January 2021 a group of about 100 stocks experienced monumental price and trading volume fluctuations. These stocks, many of which were consumer-centered companies with high brand awareness, gained rapid attention over social media platforms like Reddit and YouTube.

While the SEC’s report addresses the events and impacts of the meme stock phenomenon broadly, it focuses the bulk of its analysis around GameStop Corp (“GME”), arguably the most famous of the meme stocks.

The report notes that five factors – large price moves, large volume changes, large short interest, frequent Reddit mentions, and significant mainstream media coverage – all converged around GME in late January 2021.

In 2020, GME’s stock price swung substantially, starting the year at around $6 per share before falling to $3 in April and then rebounding to reach about $20 per share by the end of the year. [1]

Then, when Ryan Cohen, the co-founder of the popular pet-focused e-commerce company, Chewy, Inc., announced he would be joining GameStop’s board of directors on January 11, 2021, the stock took off. While GME traded at $20.65 per share that day, its rose to a high of $347.51 per share by January 27^th. Along with these price increases came similar increases in volume. Trading volume from January 23-29 averaged 100 million shares trader per day, more than 1,400% higher than average daily trade volume during 2020. [1]

As this market volatility unfolded, perspectives on its driving force into two main camps – those who touted GME as a prudent, even undervalued, investment because of its potential to break into the e-commerce market, and those who felt short interest was fueling the moves. [1] As social media users focused their attention on short interest from large institutional investors like hedge funds, a “short squeeze” on GME was triggered. The Reddit retail investors viewed themselves as fueling GME’s price increases, forcing hedge funds to close out their short positions at significant losses.

However, as GME and other meme stocks skyrocketed, some app-based trading platforms popular among retail investors placed temporary restrictions on trading in these stocks. The platforms cited various reasons for these restrictions, including margin calls from clearing agencies to cover increased risk. Conversely, retail investors believed that the restrictions were put in place in response to pressure from hedge funds with short positions at risk of losing money – claims that made their way to a Congressional hearing in February.

The SEC’s report ultimately provides a few important takeaways for the investing public. First, the report notes that it was “positive sentiment” about GME – whether a legitimate belief in GME’s fundamentals or a desire to profit from a rise in price – that fueled the sustained appreciation of GME’s stock price, not short-sellers who were “buying-to-cover.” [1] In fact, the report quite succinctly noted that “[s]taff believes that hedge funds broadly were not significantly affected” by the run on GME. [1]

Furthermore, the report also briefly touched on the rationale behind trading restrictions enacted by broker-dealers like Robinhood, noting that it had found evidence that clearing agencies had indeed demanded to be paid billions in additional margin by their member firms to account for volatility risks. [2]

The report concluded with four areas targeted for further study and consideration, noted as the following:

1. Forces that may cause a brokerage to restrict trading
2. Digital engagement practices and payment for order flow
3. Trading in dark pools and through wholesalers
4. Short selling and market dynamics. [1]

Each of these areas falls squarely within the ambit of SEC Chairman Gary Gensler’s already stated policy goals, inherent in his aim of promoting a more “fair, orderly, and efficient” market in the United States. [3] While the report did not outline specific improvements to be made, it serves as an important starting point for potential policy changes for protecting retail investor interests moving forward.

Sources:

[1] https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf

[2] https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-10-18/sec-gamestop-report-debunks-conspiracies-backs-commission-chiefs-plan

[3] https://www.barrons.com/articles/sec-report-changes-what-we-know-about-januarys-gamestop-frenzy-51634590024

At the heart of the civil and criminal complaints against Nikola are allegations that as its CEO, Trevor Milton, regularly spread false and misleading information about the progress of Nikola’s EV products and technologies. Nikola’s focus is on manufacturing low- and zero-emissions trucks, and the complaints allege in part that under Milton, Nikola published a promotional video of a prototype truck which did not actually work, but appeared to only because the truck was set in neutral and rolled down a hill. [1]

Promotional videos like that one, along with Milton’s enthusiastic social media posts and numerous podcast and television appearances, all painted a picture of exciting and impressive forward progress at Nikola, which Federal prosecutors and SEC regulators allege was nothing more than an illusion. [2]

This illusion allegedly created by Milton came at a steep cost – and was seemingly targeted retail investors in particular. Nikola went public via a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (“SPAC”) in June 2020, and once it began trading publicly, the value of its shares increased by $7 billion. However, Nikola’s value dropped steeply once the public learned of ongoing federal investigations into the company and its operations, leading to huge losses borne by retail investors who had been misled. [1]

Of course, EV companies and their executives are in a unique position given the bounding public interest in, and relative infancy of, the EV market. When attempting to evaluate a new or existing EV company, projections into the future must be made, and no fool-proof roadmap for this technology currently exists.

However, these uncertainties pose a particularly risky situation for prospective retail investors who can be easily misled by companies making false claims about their highly complex products or technologies – especially when, as here, these claims are being shared rapidly over social media.

Here, Nikola’s non-traditional IPO process put unsuspecting retail investors at even greater risk. When a company goes public via a SPAC, the traditional “quiet period” after a company is publicly listed is not required. This allowed Milton to continue amplifying false claims about Nikola on social media just after going public, thereby attracting additional retail investors, and driving the stock price up further. [3]

In pursuing these securities fraud charges against Nikola, the SEC continues to signal its sharp focus on SPAC regulation in the interest of protecting investors. As we all navigate the rapid influx of SPACs along with the continued push for broad adoption of EVs, retail investors should continue to carefully research prospective investments by identifying concrete achievements such as milestones hit and actual sales or delivery figures to date, while steering clear of “bandwagon effect” investing. These careful considerations, along with continued scrutiny by regulators, are some of the best ways to protect your assets in the market.

Sources:

[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nikola-electric-truck-prototypes-were-powered-by-hidden-wall-sockets-towed-into-position-and-rolled-down-hills-prosecutors-say-11627572394

[2] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-141

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/29/business/nikola-trevor-milton-fraud.html

The PRI is an independent network of investors who promote responsible and sustainable investing by incorporating ESG factors and considerations into their investment decisions. Although the PRI is not a part of the UN itself, the UN supports and partners with the group. In 2006, when the PRI was formed, it managed about $7 Trillion in assets, and in 2020, it managed over $100 Trillion. [1]

So why should you as an investor care about ESG investing? ESG factors and criteria empower investors to make “socially responsible” and sustainable investment decisions by providing important insight into a company’s operations, standard practices, and culture through the lens of Environmental, Social, and Governance considerations.

For example, a company might disclose Environmental factors such as their carbon emissions or water usage, aimed at conserving our natural world. Social factors place an emphasis on how a company treats both its employees and the public and include employee diversity statistics or human rights considerations. Finally, Governance factors focus on the way in which the company is led and include information like executive pay scales as well as political leanings. [2]

When an investor is equipped with meaningful – and truthful – ESG information, they can be confident in their monetary support of a company. As a result, ESG investing continues to be top of mind for investors and regulators in the United States. However, investor interest is not the only factor influencing ESG popularity. Sound ESG investing also yields relatively high returns when compared to conventional funds while providing relatively lower risk, according to a study by Morgan Stanley in 2019. [2]

While many companies voluntarily disclose ESG data, there is currently a gap in investor knowledge, as many ESG disclosures are not yet compulsory. One particular area in which this is true is with regard to climate change disclosures – which the SEC published guidance on in 2010 but have not been adjusted since then.

At Wednesday’s PRI event, Commissioner Gensler focused in on the value and importance of climate change disclosures and provided a glimpse into the future of SEC regulation of the topic. In particular, Gensler emphasized that these disclosures must be “decision useful,” meaning that they include sufficient factual information to allow proper decision-making to take place.

Gensler also highlighted the intense interest modern investors have in the climate risks associated with stocks they purchase, likening the investor push for climate risk disclosure today to the push for disclosure of basic financial information decades ago. In response to this investor interest, Gensler announced that he has tasked his staff with developing a proposal for mandatory climate risk disclosures for review by the end of 2021. [3]

The transition from the SEC’s current climate risk guidance to mandatory SEC climate risk disclosures is monumental, and it will allow investors to compare “apples to apples” when analyzing climate risk data between companies.

Furthermore, Commissioner Gensler spoke about the possibility of requiring disclosure of carbon emissions data not only for the company itself, but for each member of the company’s value chain. Granular data like this will provide investors with a truly actionable and “decision useful” basis for making investment decisions by providing not just a piece of the puzzle, but instead the full picture of a company’s true impact on the environment.

As we enter the back half of 2021, investors should be on the lookout for additional remarks by Commissioner Gensler relating to climate risks and ESG disclosures. While we have only a blueprint now, support and demonstrated investor interest in ESG factors will encourage the SEC to continue its pursuit of meaningful regulation to benefit investors like you.

Sources:

[1] https://www.unpri.org/pri/about-the-pri

[2] https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/esg-investing

[3] https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/gensler-pri-2021-07-28

Margin debt can be simply understood as debt taken on by an investor in order to extend their buying, and earning, power in the market. In essence, an investor borrows money to increase their initial investment and, hopefully, to supercharge their eventual profit.

For example, an investor might borrow $10,000 from their broker on margin in order to increase their initial investment from $20,000 to $30,000. If the shares they’ve purchased increase by 10%, the investor stands to make 50% more than they would have with only their own $20k.

Of course, taking on margin debt is also highly risky. When an investor’s balance falls below the minimum amount required by the broker, they may face a margin call. This margin call requires the investor to deposit more money or securities to maintain the broker’s minimum required value within the account.

Trading on margin is an attractive option when investors feel optimistic about the future of the security they’re investing in, or the overall market. However, this practice may have detrimental, rippling impacts within the market. Because borrowing on margin adds additional investment money into a particular stock or stocks, high levels of margin may actually begin to create a bubble. [2]

Excessive margin debt can be symptomatic of these speculative market bubbles, and eventual bursts, because it may signal overexuberant investor behavior, behavior that is not fully based in fact. As a result, several experts agree that exceedingly high levels of margin debt may signal an impending market drop.

In fact, sky-rocketing levels of margin debt have preceded both of this century’s extended economic downturns. Just before the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, margin debt was up more than 80%, and before the great recession in 2008, margin debt had risen by over 60%. [3] For context, margin debt is currently up more than 50% since this time last year and has risen 10.5% to date in 2021.

While high levels of margin debt are but one indicator of a potential market downturn, they are a critically important one to watch. In 2000 and in 2007, the S&P hit its own peak just a few months after margin debt peaked. Similarly, once margin debt hit its lowest point in 2009 following the recession, the S&P hit bottom just one month later. [4] The takeaway: the cyclical and relational nature of margin debt and overall market performance is not to be ignored.

The popularity of trading on margin has exploded, particularly in light of the newfound ease of doing so through popular app-based platforms like Robinhood. However, it is important for investors to keep in mind the broader market implications that an abundance of such trading may have, potentially in the near future.

Sources: [1] https://www.finra.org/investors/learn-to-invest/advanced-investing/margin-statistics [2] https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/economy/signs-of-market-bubble-crash-what-to-expect/ [3] https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/06/12/whos-ready-stock-market-crash-5-reasons-big-drop/ [4] https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2021/07/20/margin-debt-and-the-market-up-2-4-in-june-continues-record-trend

FINRA noted three major violations from its investigation into Robinhood’s conduct and operations as a stock-trading app, each of which merited its own penalties.

First, FINRA found that Robinhood has pervasively and negligently provided false or misleading information to its customers. [1] This false information was circulated in spite of Robinhood’s core mission to “de-mystify finance for all” and “democratize finance,” and ranged from misrepresenting customer account balances and buying power, to erroneous communication about customers facing margin calls. [2]

As a result of Robinhood’s misrepresentations, FINRA is requiring the firm to pay over $7 Million in restitution to customers who suffered related losses. [1]

Second, FINRA found that Robinhood did not exercise proper due diligence in its options trading offerings. [1] Given the financially risky character of options trading, Robinhood improperly outsourced an algorithm powered by artificial intelligence to determine customer options trading eligibility. The technology was riddled with inconsistencies, causing eligibility decisions to be made based upon incorrect customer information, and allowing ineligible customers to engage in options trading. [1]

Finally, FINRA also uncovered issues with Robinhood’s technological supervision of its core business tenets. For example, Robinhood experienced a widespread outage of its platform in early March 2020, during which operations halted. Robinhood customers were unable to access their accounts for a period of two days, during which market volatility was incredibly high. This outage, which was only one of many similar situations, resulted in approximately $5 Million in customer losses, which Robinhood has now been ordered to pay in restitution. [1]

Beyond these three severe offenses, FINRA also found that Robinhood has violated several other rules as a brokerage firm in recent years. Robinhood has failed to report failures and customer complaints which are required by FINRA, and has also failed to show customers complete market data as they make sensitive decisions about securities trading.

Robinhood, for its part, responded to the charges by stating that they are actively improving their educational resources, customer support capabilities, and legal and compliance teams. [2] They are “glad to put his matter behind [them]” with a renewed focus on the continued democratization of finance for all. [2]

FINRA’s message through these sanctions is clear – violate brokerage industry rules, pay the price. Its Head of Enforcement, Jessica Hopper, added that “all FINRA member firms, regardless of their size or business model, must comply with the rules that govern the brokerage industry . . . to protect investors and the integrity of our markets.” [1][2]

Given Robinhood’s exploding popularity among retail investors, particularly during the pandemic, this settlement should be a reassuring sign to investors that FINRA is taking its duty to protect their interests seriously. On the same token, customers of platforms like Robinhood should remain diligent in their financial decisions and report any potential issues for assessment by either the firm or by FINRA itself.

Sources: [1] https://www.finra.org/media-center/newsreleases/2021/finra-orders-record-financial-penalties-against-robinhood-financial [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/robinhood-finra-70-million-fine/

There are some situations in which FINRA arbitration is required, such as when a written agreement between the parties mandates it. In order to be eligible for FINRA arbitration, an investor must be seeking to file a claim stemming from the business activities of their broker or brokerage firm, and the event in question must have taken place within the last six years (in most states). [1]

Generally, FINRA arbitration allows an investor to seek either monetary or securities damages resulting from the business activities of their broker or brokerage firm. To get the filing process started, an investor must submit a Statement of Claim, a FINRA Submission Agreement, and related filing fees, all of which are available to view on FINRA’s website. [2]

The format and related fees for the arbitration itself vary based on the amount of money in controversy. When the amount in controversy is below $10,000, a hearing session will be conducted with just one arbitrator, and the session fee will be between $50 and $450. If the amount in controversy is above $10,000, a panel of three arbitrators may be used instead, and the hearing session fee will range from a minimum of $600 to a maximum of $1,575. [3]

Once FINRA receives all of the initial required documents, they analyze the claim and determine whether a one- or three-person arbitration panel will be used. A case number is created, and FINRA will notify the respondent – the party the investor has filed their claim against – about the case. So long as the respondent is registered with FINRA, they will be required to arbitrate.

The respondent then has 45 days to research the claim lodged against them and to respond. FINRA analyzes the response along with any counter claims or cross claims.

Next, the parties choose their arbitrators from a randomly generated list of names supplied by FINRA. FINRA arbitrators are not FINRA employees, instead they are contractors who are evaluated by FINRA on the basis of their employment, professional licenses, and education. They are chosen from diverse backgrounds and must take an oath to remain neutral and decide cases solely on the facts and meris.

Once arbitrators are chosen and agreed upon by both parties, there will be an initial pre-hearing conference, where investors are typically represented by an attorney. The arbitration hearing is scheduled, and discovery begins.

Discovery allows both parties to exchange documents and identify witnesses and is governed by rules within FINRA’s Discovery Guide. After discovery is completed, the arbitration hearing takes place.

The arbitration hearing takes place around a conference table, with arbitrators at the head of the table and the parties on each side. The claimant presents their side of the case first, complete with an opening statement, witnesses, and evidence, and is followed by the respondent. Objections are permitted, and the arbitrators determine whether or not they will accept evidence.

At the completion of the hearing, the arbitrator(s) will deliberate, and render their award, typically within 30 days. The award is legally binding on both parties, and FINRA offers no internal appeals process. While a party may choose to appeal an arbitration award in court, it should be noted that judges rarely overturn these awards.

From start to finish, FINRA arbitration cases that don’t settle before their hearing take approximately 16 months. The process allows for a streamlined and more private alternative to litigation in the courtroom, as FINRA arbitration documents are not made public like court documents. We invite you to contact us for details and support on your potential FINRA arbitration claim.

Sources: [1] https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/arbitration-overview] [2] https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/Education/p117486.pdf [3] https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/rulebooks/finra-rules/12902]