Editorial

Who's Finra protecting, anyway?

If Finra isn't going to live up to its self-professed mission to protect investors, then the SEC should.

Aug 3, 2014 @ 12:01 am

+ Zoom

Once again, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. has shown that it is more beholden to the industry it regulates than to the investing public it purports to protect.

The latest proof is Finra's recent request to the Securities and Exchange Commission to delay implementing a proposed rule that would make the pricing of nontraded real estate investment trusts more transparent to investors. Finra had originally recommended the rule take effect six months after the SEC signs off on it. In a letter dated July 11, Finra asked that it not take effect for 18 months after SEC approval.

There's no good reason we can think of for this request. In its letter to the SEC, a Finra attorney asked for more time so broker-dealers who sell nontraded REITs could adjust to the changes.

That might seem understandable — except that Finra proposed this rule nearly three years ago, in September 2011. The industry has had plenty of time to consider these changes and how they will affect business.

The proposed rule change is a good one. It would do away with broker-dealers' current practice of listing the value of nontraded REIT shares on customer account statements at $10 a share for up to 18 months after the sponsor stops raising funds, even though the value of shares from the start is closer to $8.80 a share after commissions and other fees are taken into account.

The broker-dealer and REIT industries believe the rule could initially curtail the sales of nontraded REITs. That's significant, given that $20 billion of nontraded REITs were sold last year, with a similar amount expected to be sold this year. Nontraded REITs are also a high-commission product, which means brokers aren't looking forward to anything that might crimp sales.

But that isn't a good reason to delay this pro-investor rule. If Finra's request is granted and the SEC approves it this month, the earliest the rule would take effect would be February 2016, almost five years after the rule was first proposed.

That's just too long. If Finra is not going to live up to its self-professed mission to protect investors, then the SEC should. Under no circumstances should it acquiesce to Finra's request to push back this rule's implementation.

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video

INTV

Ed Slott: 3 questions to ask before converting to a Roth IRA

To do a Roth conversion, money has to be spent. Here is what financial advisers and their clients should consider before they incur tax costs, 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