Editorial

Industry group blasts editorial about nontraded REITs

Plus, another editorial on requiring broker background checks raises new questions

May 11, 2014 @ 12:01 am

+ Zoom
(Roger Schillerstrom)

The broker-dealers and nonlisted [real estate investment trust] sponsors that are [Investment Program Association] members take exception to your shrill, misguided editorial, "Too much of a good thing" (May 5). In recent years, IPA member firms have developed product structure innovations and delivered strong investment results to investors. While nonlisted REITs have returned $19 billion in equity to shareholders since the start of 2013, a number you omit, this is only one measure of investor value that our firms deliver.

The IPA's recent support for Regulation SR-FINRA-2014-006, the proposed regulation that would change investor account statements, shows that our members favor industry transparency.

Certainly it's regrettable that any broker-dealer exceeded concentration limits. But you write as though these infractions were recent. In fact, most happened before 2009. Five years ago. These violations simply aren't the industry norm. Broker-dealers selling nonlisted REITs monitor concentration in their clients' portfolios to stay within limits mandated by their firm and their state.

In speculating about the future, it's astonishing to us that your reporter and this editorial cite a single industry source illustrating your point of view. Balance doesn't seem to be part of your agenda.

Finally, your cartoon portraying clients as babies in a high chair being spoon-fed "nontraded REITs" by advisers insults both groups. We can only conclude it was intentional.

Kevin M. Hogan

President and chief executive

Investment Program Association

Background checks should be consistent

Your editorial, "Require broker background checks" (April 21) is right on point — but to what standard (and who will pay for that search), and what can happen to that data (i.e., privacy considerations)? But this is only half the story. My question is, what do the regulators expect? One would argue, full disclosure and accurate disclosure, but compared to what?

Background checks need to happen and they need to happen in a uniform and consistent manner.

Further, any background and public database for registered representatives and investment adviser representatives are incomplete if the data do NOT include insurance agent licensing and mortgage licensing. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. should be offering its platform for insurance and mortgage licensing — across the country. This information, coupled with background checks and related disclosure, will be better information for a consumer, whether an individual or institution, to evaluate the people they are entrusting their financial lives with, and exactly who they are and how they will be compensated.

Peter Mafteiu

Principal

Sound Compliance Services

Gig Harbor, Wash.

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video

INTV

Ed Slott: Tax strategies to help clients take advantage of market declines

When the markets decline or are volatile, it is an opportunity to put a few retirement savings strategies to work, according to Ed Slott, founder of Ed Slott's Elite IRA Advisor Group.

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.

Fidelity wins arb case against wine mogul but earns a rebuke from Finra

In the case of investor Peter Deutsch, Fidelity doesn't have to pay any compensation, but regulator said firm put its interests ahead of his.

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.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print