Tweet away: Finra backs off social-media posting regs

Burden of vetting posts cited, victory for securities industry

Dec 30, 2011 @ 1:47 pm

By Dan Jamieson

+ Zoom
(lobstar28)

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. has backed away from a proposal that would have required broker-dealers to file social-media postings with the regulator.

In an update to a package of proposed communications rules filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission last week, Finra said that in response to comments, it would exclude messages on online interactive forums from a post-use filing requirement.

The securities industry had pushed for the change.

“If every member firm is required to monitor and review all of the online postings of all of its registered representatives, and every member firm is required to file those that trigger a filing requirement, the impact upon Finra is potentially overwhelming,” the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association wrote in a comment letter this month.

Finra has been treating interactive posts as “public appearances,” which must be supervised but do not necessarily have filing requirements.

The self-regulator is proposing to do away with the public-appearance category of communications, and treat online posts as correspondence.

In proposing the latest changes to its communications rules, Finra said it disagreed with the argument that online posts are like public appearances because the posts remain available to the public for an extended period of time. But Finra said it is nevertheless proposing to exclude them from a filing requirement.

The oversight of social media has been a tricky area for firms and regulators, who have struggled to supervise the communications without impeding spontaneous conversations.

Finra's proposal should help improve communications to investors, said John Drachman, founder of The Drachman Group Inc., a marketing consultant.

But he advises financial firms to follow stricter procedures for any product-specific posts.

“For example, a member forum that addressed the use of managed futures in a portfolio should be excluded from retail filing requirements,” he said, “while a member forum that weighed the advantages of one managed futures fund versus another should continue to file its communications.”

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video

INTV

DOL fiduciary rule opponents and supporters sound off on Jan. 1 deadline

Senior reporter Mark Schoeff Jr. and managing editor Christina Nelson discuss the latest batch of comment letters on the regulation, this round focused on timing of the full implementation date.

Latest news & opinion

Will Jeffrey Gundlach's Trump-like approach on Twitter work in financial services?

The DoubleLine CEO's attacks on Wall Street Journal reporters is igniting a discussion on what's fair game on social media.

Plaintiffs win in Tibble vs. Edison 401(k) fee case

After a decade of activity around the lawsuit, including a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, judge rules a prudent fiduciary would have invested in institutional shares.

Advisers get more breathing room to make Form ADV changes

RIAs can enter '0' in some new parts of the document before their annual filing next year.

Since banking scandal, Wells Fargo advisers with more than $19.2 billion leave firm

Despite a trying year, the firm has said it will sweeten signing bonuses for veteran advisers.

Is LPL's deal sweet enough for NPH's 3,200 reps and advisers?

They will have to decide if the signing package they are being offered by LPL makes sense. A lot is hanging in the balance.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print