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]

Let’s consider an example of margin investing with Robinhood. An investor deposits $5,000 cash into a margin account, and Robinhood lends another $5,000 to allow the investor $10,000 worth of securities. The “margin” is the difference between the value of the securities and the loan from Robinhood. This type of investing increases both purchasing power and financial leverage. [1]

If the securities in the margin account increase in value, the investor has the opportunity for a higher profit than they would have had they invested $10,000 of their own.

On the other hand, if the securities decrease in value, the margin investor is at risk of losing more than they would have had they invested $10,000 of their own.

One of the most significant risks of margin investing stems from margin calls. Because securities purchased on margin are used as collateral against the loan Robinhood extends, Robinhood sets “margin maintenance requirements” on each margin account. These requirements are minimum portfolio values that must be maintained by the investor, and they help Robinhood protect the money they’ve loaned. [2]

So, if the market is volatile, as it has been recently, and the value of securities in a margin account falls too far, Robinhood will issue a margin call. The investor must then either deposit additional cash into their account to meet the margin maintenance requirement or close out their position(s).

However, per Robinhood’s Margin Account Agreement and Margin Disclosure Statement, when Robinhood issues a margin call, they also have the right to sell the account holder’s securities without notice nor consultation. [3],[4]

The language of the agreement specifically states that Robinhood is authorized to liquidate or sell the securities in a margin account to cover any margin deficiency, and that they are not required to notify the account holder before making such a sale. The agreement also stipulates that Robinhood has the sole authority to choose which securities are sold in order to satisfy a margin call, and that Robinhood’s margin maintenance requirements are subject to increase at any time, with no advanced written notice required. [3],[4]

Based on this agreement, which all Robinhood margin investors are required to sign, Robinhood has quite a bit of power over margin accounts. Understood in context, however, these stipulations are designed not to put the investor at risk, but instead to allow Robinhood to protect the money they’ve loaned to investors via immediate liquidation and/or covering losses by requiring additional cash deposits. [3],[4]

Margin investors should also be aware that Robinhood’s margin account agreement explicitly states that any disputes must be resolved via arbitration, so neither party to the agreement may sue one another in court. If a dispute arises, an arbitration case would be filed with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in order to reach a resolution or settlement. [3],[4] FINRA arbitration is designed to create a fair and expedited alternative to a traditional court case, but it’s important to understand the arbitration process before deciding to make the leap into margin investing.

So, depending on your risk tolerance, margin trading may or may not be an investment tool you want to use in your accounts.

In our next post, we’ll be sharing a start-to-finish overview of what you can expect from the FINRA arbitration process, particularly as it pertains to margin investing.

Sources: [1] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/041315/why-purchasing-stocks-margin-considered-more-risky-traditional-investing.asp [2] https://robinhood.com/us/en/support/articles/margin-overview/ [3]https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHS%20Customer%20Margin%20and%20Short%20Account%20Agreement.pdf [4]https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHS%20Margin%20Disclosure%20Statement.pdf

Starting with the basics, what is a non-fungible token?

An NFT is a type of digital, cryptographic asset which exists on blockchain. Fungibility refers to interchangeability – assets like dollars, gold, and even Bitcoin, are fungible, because each unit is worth the exact same amount, and is thus readily interchangeable. On the other hand, each unit of a non-fungible asset has its own unique value and thus is not readily interchangeable – think of assets like property, artwork, and other collectibles. [1]

NFTs derive their value from their uniqueness. Each NFT has its own identification codes and related data within the blockchain to distinguish itself. It is impossible to replicate an NFT, which helps to create rarity among NFTs akin to that of traditional and tangible collectibles.

While there are several possible use cases for NFTs, the market is currently largely focused on collectibles. In particular, the popularity of digital artwork NFTs has skyrocketed in 2021. Artists are excited about this new market, as NFTs eliminate the need for intermediaries like art brokers, thereby increasing market efficiency. Artists can now post their artwork on digital marketplaces like OpenSea where anyone in the world can browse and purchase using blockchain-based cryptocurrencies, like Ethereum. [2]

But when you buy an NFT, what do you actually get? In the case of digital collectible NFTs, you are getting not only the digital piece of art, but also the NFT’s unique code and data on the blockchain. The value of the NFT comes from its unique identifiers. You are not, however, getting any intellectual property rights to the piece of art – those still belong to the artist.

Instead, much like physical pieces of art or baseball cards, you are paying to own an “original” or collectible item. For example, when Jack Dorsey sold an NFT of his first tweet, the buyer received a unique token on the blockchain that cannot be replicated. But that does nothing to change the fact that anyone with internet access can look at the tweet, screen shot it, or save a picture of the tweet on their phone.

The concept may seem nebulous to some, but its not so different from physical collectibles. It’s widely accepted that certain early edition baseball cards have inherent value to collectors. If someone were to simply take a picture of one of these collectible cards, that would do nothing to decrease the value of the original card, and similarly, would not suddenly give value to the picture someone took of it.

Of course, rarity alone does not necessarily equate to value – actual interest within the market participants of owning the NFTs is also essential. But it is yet to be seen whether this is what makes NFTs such an interesting and risky investment opportunity.

Many people are currently buying NFTs speculatively, not to own them long-term, but rather with the aim of selling them at a profit sometime in the future. While some NFT purchasers have already made huge sums of money in this way, it remains to be seen whether the current NFT craze will endure, or whether this is a passing fad brought on by the uncertain and unprecedented circumstances we’re all currently under.

In sum, NFTs present an equally intriguing and risky investment opportunity. If you are interested in the market, you should approach the decision to invest with extra care as the NFT market continues to develop and additional use cases and capabilities are explored.

Sources: [1] https://www.investopedia.com/non-fungible-tokens-nft-5115211 [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/arts/design/nft-auction-christies-beeple.html

As has been widely reported this week, when Reddit retail investors discovered that hedge fund managers were widely shorting GameStop, AMC, and others, they urged fellow users to begin buying up these stocks. This frenzy of investment activity resulted in a short squeeze, sending GameStop’s stock price soaring, causing hedge funds to incur huge losses on their short positions, and placing popular online trading platforms in a precarious financial situation. GameStop shares closed the week of January 25, 2021 up 400% in spite of market volatility and restrictions, and without any material change to the prospects of company.

But how did we get here?

For one, through the rise of simple, fee-free, online investment platforms like Robinhood. These platforms have empowered retail investors by providing an easy-to-use interface to enter the market and trade shares at the click of a button. But this innovation hasn’t come without its critics, who counter that the platforms may paint investments as form of gambling for users who may not have the requisite knowledge to make informed decisions about the risk they take on in their accounts.

As trading activity exploded on Robinhood this week, the platform became strained and suspended trading on a group of 13 popular stocks on Thursday, January 29^th. The restrictions disallowed further purchasing of the stocks but allowed selling – making it difficult for prices to continue to rise. As reported by the New York Times, in order to continue operating Robinhood needed funds to pay both its clearing facility and its users who were owed money from prior trades. To that end, Robinhood raised over $1 billion from its credit lines on Thursday night, enabling trading to resume on Friday, albeit with significant stock-quantity restrictions.

Of course, this period of restricted trading has raised some important legal and regulatory questions. First, some Robinhood users viewed the trading restrictions as unjust behavior in the free market, with over a dozen lawsuits, including a class action, filed against the company this week. The lawsuits claim that Robinhood breached its contract with users when it began restricting their trading activity. Further, the class action lawsuit claims that Robinhood’s “actions were done purposefully and knowingly to manipulate the market for the benefit of people and financial institutions who were not Robinhood’s customers.”

According to several legal experts cited by Thompson Reuters, it is unlikely that these lawsuits will succeed, because Robinhood’s user agreement reserves the right to “prohibit or restrict” its users from trading securities at its own discretion. Additionally, federal securities law places strict limits on class actions against brokers, and users will face the tough task of proving the specific damages they suffered because of the restrictions. They will also likely need to show concrete evidence that Robinhood’s restrictions were made for an some “improper reason, such as to favor certain investors” to succeed.

Given the intense public scrutiny and media attention, it’s difficult not to wonder what comes next. In the regulatory realm, the SEC has released a statement vowing that they “will closely review actions taken by regulated entities that may disadvantage investors or otherwise unduly inhibit their ability to trade certain securities.” In fact, the SEC has already had its eyes on Robinhood in recent months. They issued a $65 million fine against the company in December 2020, alleging that Robinhood misled its customers about their main revenue source, causing users to lose $34.1 million between 2015 and 2018.

With commitment this week from both the White House and Treasury to monitor the situation, along with bipartisan support in Congress to investigate, this fast-evolving situation will be one to watch in the coming weeks.

According to the Financial Times, during the ‘consultation period’ when the Securities and Exchange Commission considers comments made about their proposed changes, 2.262 letters were submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the proposed change to the disclosure rules. Of these 2,262 comment letters, 99% were against the proposed rule, according to Financial Times. The result of such a large number of letters opposing the rule change is that the Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to withdraw its proposal and keep the current disclosure threshold of $100 million.

The $100 million threshold has been in place since 1975 and it requires hedge funds to file a “13-F” report each quarter to disclose their holdings. The Securities and Exchange Commission looked at the fact that the US equity market capitalization has grown from $1 trillion to an $35 trillion and decided that it was time to raise the disclosure limit. The Securities and Exchange commission also claimed that the disclosure requirements at $100 million were a burden to the smaller hedge funds. This reasoning leaves out the impact that its actions would have on the transparency of the markets. The Financial Times reports that hedge fund managers were skeptical of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s reasoning. The smaller hedge fund managers and even the CFA Institute noted that the costs to file the 13F are negligible and the process was mostly automated by today’s portfolio accounting software programs.

There are plenty of reasons why the proposed rule change is a bad idea that would have long term negative effects on the securities markets. The financial markets need to be as transparent as possible to protect investors and the integrity of the public securities markets. Whenever rules create additional options for hedge funds to obscure their investments, the individual investor is at a disadvantage. The individual investor should have access to understanding the positions taken by hedge funds because it can help guide their own investing and provide clues as to how the ‘experts’ value an investment that an individual investor may want to make.

Financial Times noted that another potential problem with the proposed disclosure threshold increase is that it would permit activist investors to accumulate larger stakes in companies, thus forcing companies to develop new strategies for dealing with activist investors. An ‘activist investor’ is one who buys shares in a publicly traded company in order to get board of director seats and then work to make significant changes to the target company. This may sometimes be beneficial for the target company but it could also lead to negative impacts by derailing management’s plans to grow the target company and ultimately hurting shareholders of the target company.

The New York Stock Exchange’s letter warned that small and medium size publicly traded companies could be hardest hit, according to Financial Times. Since smaller companies have a smaller ‘float’ of shares, an activist company could quickly purchase a significant portion of the company’s shares and in effect take over the company from its current managers by obtaining multiple board of director seats and thus call the shots.

The outpouring of resistance by hedge funds, publicly traded companies and large pension funds to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed rule change is a welcome sign in a world where many people may believe that Wall Street is trying to take advantage of them. Let’s hope that the Securities and Exchange Commission does withdraw this rule change proposal.

It is fundamental to full and fair disclosure that if an individual investor wants to know whether their financial adviser, or a financial adviser they want to hire, has any legal or regulatory problems, that this information is easy for an investor to obtain. To that end, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) sought to simplify the process by which an individual investor can access this information. The result of the SEC’s efforts was the “Form CRS.” “CRS” stands for customer (or client) relationship summary.

This information has been available. However, for the average “Main Street” individual investor, the information was not easy to find. And when the customer complaint and regulatory history was found, the disclosures were difficult to understand. The Form CRS[2] was intended to address this complexity and difficulty through simplification. Thus, the SEC created what SEC Chairman Jay Clayton said in November 2018 would be a “clear and concise” document. I think they succeeded. Wall Street, however, failed.

One question on the Form CRS asks is “Do you or your financial professionals have legal or regulatory history.” This is a simple yes or no question. Or so you would think. The SEC’s instructions for Form CRS elaborate, telling financial advisers to answer ‘yes’ if they or their financial professionals have disclosed such legal or regulatory history. The SEC instructs financial advisers to disclose if they or their advisers have disclosed any legal disputes with customers, regulatory penalties or have been terminated while working at prior employers.

Pretty straight forward, right? Well, apparently not if you are a financial professional! According to the Wall Street Journal’s analysis, an astonishingly high number of firms failed to report legal and regulatory issues. 1,300 firms failed to list disclosures on approximately 2,300 individual employees. The Wall Street Journal reports that their analysis shows that approximately 1,600, or almost 70%, of the non-disclosures related to customer complaints.

The failure to answer ‘yes’ approximately 2,300 times by almost 1,300 financial firms on this Form CRS is more than a mistake.

It is the financial industry’s continued attempt to hide this important information from investors. Transparency is important and by ignoring the rules and intentionally (or at least grossly negligently) hiding customer complaints from investors, these firms weaken investors’ trust.

This mass failure to be transparent can only be seen as an intentional attempt by Wall Street to mislead Main Street investors.

When seeking to hire a financial professional, the prudent investor will try to find out if the financial professional they want to hire is trustworthy or has any customer complaints. This information is vital not only to protect individual investors, but it is important to help ‘clean up’ the financial industry by helping to rid the industry of those financial professionals that have significant or numerous customer complaints. Even with the SEC’s simple Form CRS, the Main Street individual investor is at a disadvantage since the firms are not properly disclosing the information.

It is my hope that the SEC acts strongly to prevent a re-occurrence of the Wall Street’s attempt to hide the truth from investors. I also hope that Wall Street becomes more transparent so that individual investors can finally move towards having a level playing field. Proper disclosure by financial professionals of their legal and regulatory history is a big step in the right direction.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/financial-firms-fail-to-own-up-to-advisers-past-misdeeds-11598698800?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1 [2] https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/secg/form-crs-relationship-summary