Comments on: Is Wall Street On the Up and Up? http://www.senseoncents.com/2009/10/is-wall-street-on-the-up-and-up/ Navigating the Economic Landscape Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:25:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: James http://www.senseoncents.com/2009/10/is-wall-street-on-the-up-and-up/comment-page-1/#comment-7350 James Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:23:28 +0000 http://www.senseoncents.com/?p=11205#comment-7350 If you google Former Stanford brokers you will find many have found new jobs with other brokerage companies. I submit, that these former Stanford brokers knew, the returns were to high, the Stanford CDs uninsured, and their brokerage commission were 1200 percent higher than normal. Find the name of the company that hired you former broker, the SEC, and Finra, and write a complaint to all. It won't get your money back, but it will make you feel better. If you google Former Stanford brokers you will find many have found new jobs with other brokerage companies. I submit, that these former Stanford brokers knew, the returns were to high, the Stanford CDs uninsured, and their brokerage commission were 1200 percent higher than normal. Find the name of the company that hired you former broker, the SEC, and Finra, and write a complaint to all. It won’t get your money back, but it will make you feel better.

]]> By: Larry Doyle http://www.senseoncents.com/2009/10/is-wall-street-on-the-up-and-up/comment-page-1/#comment-5754 Larry Doyle Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:03:44 +0000 http://www.senseoncents.com/?p=11205#comment-5754 John, Thanks for the technical insights from one 'in the trenches.' What investor would not prefer the fiduciary standard from his investment advisors? Thanks for adding this very helpful perspective. John,

Thanks for the technical insights from one ‘in the trenches.’ What investor would not prefer the fiduciary standard from his investment advisors?

Thanks for adding this very helpful perspective.

]]> By: Kathy http://www.senseoncents.com/2009/10/is-wall-street-on-the-up-and-up/comment-page-1/#comment-5752 Kathy Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:49:52 +0000 http://www.senseoncents.com/?p=11205#comment-5752 Well argued, and yes, the American public deserves the truth. Finra has no business regulating the industry that feeds it. Sham regulation of this type undermines the entire financial structure. Well argued, and yes, the American public deserves the truth. Finra has no business regulating the industry that feeds it. Sham regulation of this type undermines the entire financial structure.

]]> By: John Lounsbury http://www.senseoncents.com/2009/10/is-wall-street-on-the-up-and-up/comment-page-1/#comment-5751 John Lounsbury Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:34:17 +0000 http://www.senseoncents.com/?p=11205#comment-5751 Larry - - - Excellent article. FINRA is the successor to the NASD (National Association of Security Dealers), and, as such, is an industry self-regulatory group. Their primary objective is to protect the interests of broker-dealers and their agents. In protecting those interests, they will, with great fanfare, reveal disciplinary actions from time to time. The most effective actions are taken against brokers (Registered Reps) when they, as individuals, are found to have commited fraud. When action is announced against broker-dealers, it is often token wrist slapping. The CFP Board, with their associated industry professional association, the FPA, have long taken a position that financial planners have a fiduciary responsibility. (CFP is Certified Financial Planner and FPA is Financial Planning Association.) The NASD, and now FINRA, has taken the position that Registered Reps who are CFPs, even when they offer financial planning advice, should be exempt from fiduciary responsibility under the code of ethics provisions (of the CFP Board) and the SEC requirements for investment advisors under The Investmanr Advisors Act of 1940. In other words, Registered Reps should have no more responsibility to their clients than a used car salesman. If they blatantly misrepresent something, that is wrong. If they are subtly misleading, well, caveat emptor. FINRA is on one side of this fiduciary responsibility argument and the FPA and the CFP Board are on the other. This conflict has been going on for many years. Having observed this debate, originally being in both houses (a CFP who was a Registered Rep), and for the past eight years as only a CFP registrant, I have come to a very low opinion of FINRA when it comes to customer protection. The litany of details you have outlined in this article are no surprise to me, even though a couple of them are new news. Larry – - -

Excellent article.

FINRA is the successor to the NASD (National Association of Security Dealers), and, as such, is an industry self-regulatory group. Their primary objective is to protect the interests of broker-dealers and their agents. In protecting those interests, they will, with great fanfare, reveal disciplinary actions from time to time. The most effective actions are taken against brokers (Registered Reps) when they, as individuals, are found to have commited fraud. When action is announced against broker-dealers, it is often token wrist slapping.

The CFP Board, with their associated industry professional association, the FPA, have long taken a position that financial planners have a fiduciary responsibility. (CFP is Certified Financial Planner and FPA is Financial Planning Association.) The NASD, and now FINRA, has taken the position that Registered Reps who are CFPs, even when they offer financial planning advice, should be exempt from fiduciary responsibility under the code of ethics provisions (of the CFP Board) and the SEC requirements for investment advisors under The Investmanr Advisors Act of 1940. In other words, Registered Reps should have no more responsibility to their clients than a used car salesman. If they blatantly misrepresent something, that is wrong. If they are subtly misleading, well, caveat emptor.

FINRA is on one side of this fiduciary responsibility argument and the FPA and the CFP Board are on the other. This conflict has been going on for many years. Having observed this debate, originally being in both houses (a CFP who was a Registered Rep), and for the past eight years as only a CFP registrant, I have come to a very low opinion of FINRA when it comes to customer protection. The litany of details you have outlined in this article are no surprise to me, even though a couple of them are new news.

]]> By: Larry Doyle http://www.senseoncents.com/2009/10/is-wall-street-on-the-up-and-up/comment-page-1/#comment-5748 Larry Doyle Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:01:10 +0000 http://www.senseoncents.com/?p=11205#comment-5748 Mikaele, First things first, hopefully FINRA will be compelled to provide total transparency. In the process, hopefully those who invested in Stanford, Madoff, and ARS are privy to ALL the information so they can proceed towards a just outcome. I do agree with you that if the investors across these groups were to be organized, then the pressure applied could be enormous. The numbers of investors certainly run into the tens of thousands. Hopefully they can all find their way to Sense on Cents to learn more about this story!! I do like the way you think. Mikaele,

First things first, hopefully FINRA will be compelled to provide total transparency. In the process, hopefully those who invested in Stanford, Madoff, and ARS are privy to ALL the information so they can proceed towards a just outcome.

I do agree with you that if the investors across these groups were to be organized, then the pressure applied could be enormous.

The numbers of investors certainly run into the tens of thousands.

Hopefully they can all find their way to Sense on Cents to learn more about this story!!

I do like the way you think.

]]> By: Mikaele http://www.senseoncents.com/2009/10/is-wall-street-on-the-up-and-up/comment-page-1/#comment-5747 Mikaele Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:42:14 +0000 http://www.senseoncents.com/?p=11205#comment-5747 Thanks Larry! I am an ARS victim w/ Oppenheimer and see how the SEC and FINRA have not done much to prevent this and as you stated Finra sold their own holdings before the crash. What to do? Would there be a better shot of getting things done by grouping Maddof/Sanford/ARS together? We all end up in little groups that seem to be flying under the media radar. Just a thought. Thanks Larry!
I am an ARS victim w/ Oppenheimer and see how the SEC and FINRA have not done much to prevent this and as you stated Finra sold their own holdings before the crash. What to do? Would there be a better shot of getting things done by grouping Maddof/Sanford/ARS together? We all end up in little groups that seem to be flying under the media radar. Just a thought.

]]> By: Larry Doyle http://www.senseoncents.com/2009/10/is-wall-street-on-the-up-and-up/comment-page-1/#comment-5739 Larry Doyle Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:05:59 +0000 http://www.senseoncents.com/?p=11205#comment-5739 Jean, Thank you for these comments which further enlighten all of us reading this commentary. The fact that the OCC was also negligent only adds fuel to the fire. Why hasn't that fact been more widely disseminated and broadcast? Given that failure, the lack of oversight and protection of investor interests now incorporate the SEC, FINRA, and the OCC. Where does it end? To think that a systemic failure of this sort is due to a lack of communication and other protocols is hard to swallow...and believe. As I think this through, if our regulators were this bad, the more I am convinced there must be many more frauds out there. I am glad you found <em>Sense on Cents</em>. Please visit and comment often so we can all be that much more enlightened...as it seems we need to protect ourselves given that regulators have not protected us. Thanks. Jean,

Thank you for these comments which further enlighten all of us reading this commentary. The fact that the OCC was also negligent only adds fuel to the fire. Why hasn’t that fact been more widely disseminated and broadcast? Given that failure, the lack of oversight and protection of investor interests now incorporate the SEC, FINRA, and the OCC. Where does it end?

To think that a systemic failure of this sort is due to a lack of communication and other protocols is hard to swallow…and believe.

As I think this through, if our regulators were this bad, the more I am convinced there must be many more frauds out there.

I am glad you found Sense on Cents. Please visit and comment often so we can all be that much more enlightened…as it seems we need to protect ourselves given that regulators have not protected us.

Thanks.

]]> By: Jean Anne Mayhall http://www.senseoncents.com/2009/10/is-wall-street-on-the-up-and-up/comment-page-1/#comment-5738 Jean Anne Mayhall Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:54:17 +0000 http://www.senseoncents.com/?p=11205#comment-5738 Dear Larry, Thank you for your right-on and comprehensive presentation of the FINRA/SEC misses in the Stanford Case. I am a founder of the Louisiana Stanford Victims Group. It might interest you to know (in addition to all you already know), that the Stanford Trust Company flew totally under the radar in my state. It was an entity that took in billions of IRA accounts, from victims in 35 states, whose money was rolled over by Stanford FINRA licensed brokers, as these older folks retired. Another point of interest is that forensic accountants have now uncovered the fact that none of the money invested in CD's, left the USA banking system. Whether liquidated from a stock portfolio or invested in the form of a check handed directly to our brokers, the cash never went to Antigua. It was deposited directly into US national banks such as Trustmark and Bank of Houston. These banks are audited annually by the OCC. So we ask, where was the OCC and how did they miss these bank accounts, clearly in the name of Allen Stanford, through which billions flowed every year to fuel and perpetuate the Stanford Ponzi scheme? All opeartaing expenses, including the brokers' commissions were paid from these accounts. Yes, Antigua was a decoy. There never were any CD's, it was all a paper chase. But it took place here in the USA, not offshore. Dear Larry,
Thank you for your right-on and comprehensive presentation of the FINRA/SEC misses in the Stanford Case. I am a founder of the Louisiana Stanford Victims Group. It might interest you to know (in addition to all you already know), that the Stanford Trust Company flew totally under the radar in my state. It was an entity that took in billions of IRA accounts, from victims in 35 states, whose money was rolled over by Stanford FINRA licensed brokers, as these older folks retired.
Another point of interest is that forensic accountants have now uncovered the fact that none of the money invested in CD’s, left the USA banking system. Whether liquidated from a stock portfolio or invested in the form of a check handed directly to our brokers, the cash never went to Antigua. It was deposited directly into US national banks such as Trustmark and Bank of Houston. These banks are audited annually by the OCC. So we ask, where was the OCC and how did they miss these bank accounts, clearly in the name of Allen Stanford, through which billions flowed every year to fuel and perpetuate the Stanford Ponzi scheme? All opeartaing expenses, including the brokers’ commissions were paid from these accounts. Yes, Antigua was a decoy. There never were any CD’s, it was all a paper chase. But it took place here in the USA, not offshore.

]]> By: Tony Ryals http://www.senseoncents.com/2009/10/is-wall-street-on-the-up-and-up/comment-page-1/#comment-5721 Tony Ryals Sun, 04 Oct 2009 04:47:09 +0000 http://www.senseoncents.com/?p=11205#comment-5721 I am very sceptical of Mary Schapiro's sincereity about cleaning up Christopher Cox's and his predecessors mess at the SEC based upon her all too cozy connections to he very cliques of Wall Street,FINRA and 'securities' scamsters she would have to confront to come close to her stated goals. Also Douglas Shulman's appointment by W Bush to head the IRS of all things seems like planting another securities cover up artist in an all too sensitive position to cover up for and protect well heeled securities con artists who often use offshore accounts to do their dirty business that actually comes down to ripping off small American investors and taking their money offshore where those small investors besides suffering much grief and hard times from the loss of that capital,will never pay taxes on it again to the detriment of the U.S.government itself.Douglas Shulman,if I understand correctly is simply providing people whose offshore accounts whether in the Carribean, Lichtenstein, Isle Of Man r London,Asia or Pacific,Dubai or Israel,etc., probably contain money made on stock scams against Americans on the U.S. stock markets,the equivalent of a papal pardon that is good for no one except the crooks. On another related matter Mary Schapiro was persuing what I believe a valid and neccessary enqiry(before Carl Levin distracted her with a demand to look for non existent 'naked shorts'),a short while ago called 'black pool' trading I believe,(meaning private trading that is hidden from small investors),- even through the Dubai Sheikh Mohamed's NASDAQ or OMX or whatever it is now called. This Sheikh whose country sent at least $100,000 and I believe at at $175,000 to Mohamed Atta in Venice,Florida pre 9/11 and whose is more suspect than ever in ongoing money laundering activities,(even though or because the likes of Haliburton is now headquartered there) now controls the U.S.NASDAQ as well as Sweden's OMX and some part or all of Finland's stock market and Iceland I believe and yet at the same time is doing some sort of 'dark trading' or whatever more akin to the old Arab Hawala system on steroids.In fact in the hands of those with such a 'philosophy' where share movements can be so useful to mask money flows the NASDAQ and other markets potentials for money laundering is outright terrifying. Furthermore the SEC or FINRA or whoever or whatever body or group,including our monopolized 'news' media ,that had the responsibilty to inform the American public that much or all of the NASDAQ was being tranfered to the Sheikh Mohamed of Dubai failed in its or their obligations.As you know when CNN and Fox and CNBC et.al.,informed the American public about the planned takeover by Dubai of U.S.Port security up to 95% of Americans objected vehemently.I have mentioned to some Americans recently that if they buy any shares of a company on the NASDAQ they are now putting money in the pocket of the very Sheikh of Dubai whose country sent money to Mohamed Atta in Venice,Florida just prior to 9/11/01.I now believe Americans' ignorance of this fact(that Sheikh Mohamed profits everytime they buy or sell a NASDAQ stock) is the result of a planned news black out because the elite who control our news media approved the Sheikh's control of MASDAQ and knew average Americans would strongly object if they were made aware of this fact.So they simply failed to report it.Am I wrong ? I am very sceptical of Mary Schapiro’s sincereity about cleaning up Christopher Cox’s and his predecessors mess at the SEC based upon her all too cozy connections to he very cliques of Wall Street,FINRA and ’securities’ scamsters she would have to confront to come close to her stated goals.
Also Douglas Shulman’s appointment by W Bush to head the IRS of all things seems like planting another securities cover up artist in an all too sensitive position to cover up for and protect well heeled securities con artists who
often use offshore accounts to do their dirty business that
actually comes down to ripping off small American investors and taking their money offshore where those small investors besides suffering much grief and hard times from the loss of that capital,will never pay taxes on it again to the detriment of the U.S.government itself.Douglas Shulman,if I understand correctly is simply providing people whose offshore accounts whether in the Carribean, Lichtenstein, Isle Of Man r London,Asia or Pacific,Dubai or Israel,etc., probably contain money made on stock scams against Americans on the U.S. stock markets,the equivalent of a papal pardon that is good for no one except the crooks.
On another related matter Mary Schapiro was persuing what I believe a valid and neccessary enqiry(before Carl Levin distracted her with a demand to look for non existent ‘naked shorts’),a short while ago called ‘black pool’ trading I believe,(meaning private trading that is hidden from small investors),- even through the Dubai Sheikh Mohamed’s NASDAQ or OMX or whatever it is now called.
This Sheikh whose country sent at least $100,000 and I believe at at $175,000 to Mohamed Atta in Venice,Florida pre 9/11 and whose is more suspect than ever in ongoing money laundering activities,(even though or because the likes of Haliburton is now headquartered there) now controls the U.S.NASDAQ as well as Sweden’s OMX and some part or all of Finland’s stock market and Iceland I believe and yet at the same time is doing some sort of ‘dark trading’ or whatever more akin to the old Arab Hawala system on steroids.In fact in the hands of those with such a ‘philosophy’ where share movements can be so useful to mask money flows the NASDAQ and other markets potentials for money laundering is outright terrifying.
Furthermore the SEC or FINRA or whoever or whatever body or group,including our monopolized ‘news’ media ,that had the responsibilty to inform the American public that much or all of the NASDAQ was being tranfered to the Sheikh Mohamed of Dubai failed in its or their obligations.As you know when CNN and Fox and CNBC et.al.,informed the American public about the planned takeover by Dubai of U.S.Port security up to 95% of Americans objected vehemently.I have mentioned to some Americans recently that if they buy any shares of a company on the NASDAQ they are now putting money in the pocket of the very Sheikh of Dubai whose country sent money to Mohamed Atta in Venice,Florida just prior to 9/11/01.I now believe Americans’ ignorance of this fact(that Sheikh Mohamed profits everytime they buy or sell a NASDAQ stock) is the result of a planned news black out because the elite who control our news media approved the Sheikh’s control of MASDAQ and knew average Americans would strongly object if they were made aware of this fact.So they simply failed to report it.Am I wrong ?

]]> By: Ronnie Sue Ambrosino http://www.senseoncents.com/2009/10/is-wall-street-on-the-up-and-up/comment-page-1/#comment-5720 Ronnie Sue Ambrosino Sun, 04 Oct 2009 04:35:25 +0000 http://www.senseoncents.com/?p=11205#comment-5720 Larry, You have, once again, stated your case in a clear and concise manner. I am a Madoff victim and have been trying, as Ralph suggests, to get these messages out to the public. As the Coordinator for the Madoff Coalition for Investment Protection group, we are extremely concerned that all American investors are subject to the lack of oversight and transparency that you speak of. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of investors have suffered greatly by the inactions and incompetence of the SEC and FINRA. I wonder at what point investors will begin to demand accountability for the actions of the agencies that were created to protect them? I fear that until they do, we will continue to throw more money and resources to these agencies which are no more than facades of protection. Our already weakened financial market system can no longer afford the false sense of confidence offered by the SEC, FINRA and SIPC to investors who have already suffered so greatly as a result of the agencies' failures. Ronnie Sue Ambrosino bmv.coordinator@gmail.com Larry,
You have, once again, stated your case in a clear and concise manner.
I am a Madoff victim and have been trying, as Ralph suggests, to get these messages out to the public.
As the Coordinator for the Madoff Coalition for Investment Protection group, we are extremely concerned that all American investors are subject to the lack of oversight and transparency that you speak of.
Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of investors have suffered greatly by the inactions and incompetence of the SEC and FINRA.
I wonder at what point investors will begin to demand accountability for the actions of the agencies that were created to protect them?
I fear that until they do, we will continue to throw more money and resources to these agencies which are no more than facades of protection.
Our already weakened financial market system can no longer afford the false sense of confidence offered by the SEC, FINRA and SIPC to investors who have already suffered so greatly as a result of the agencies’ failures.

Ronnie Sue Ambrosino
bmv.coordinator@gmail.com

]]>