Thank you for the outstanding Just Thinking column “When the tax man cometh for our troops” (April 30).
I agree 100% on no taxes for U.S. service members when stationed outside the United States, as they need all the help and support we can give them.
Only those serving in combat zones earn tax-free income.
I feel this way because I spent eight years in the Navy and know the pain of separation from family.
This is the least we can do as a small way of saying thank you to those who are protecting us.
Scot Hanson
Certified financial planner
Educators Financial Services Inc.
Shoreview, Minn.
As a regular reader of
InvestmentNews, I found the juxtaposition of two articles on the front page of the April 30 issue ironic.
On one hand, in the article “Bipartisan support for SRO in question,” Howard Schloss, vice president of the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc., is quoted as saying: “We understand what it takes to run a national exam program.”
In the other article, “Finra's big loss prompts move to raise fees,” an e-mail from the self-regulatory organization's chief executive, Richard G. Ketchum, is cited in which he laments the fact that the SRO is likely to experience a “significant loss for fiscal year 2011.”
Wow. Finra may know how to run a national exam program, but it certainly doesn't appear to know how to do it efficiently.
Thank you for your fair and accurate reporting. I truly hope that the folks in Congress who will be deciding the issue of investment adviser oversight will take the time to read these articles and see clearly Finra's promotion of itself as a viable overseer as the hypocrisy that it really is.
Jon M. Duncan
Managing member
Seneschal Advisors LLC
University Place, Wash.
On April 23, all Finra member firms received an alert from chief executive Richard G. Ketchum.
The e-mail pertained to items discussed at the April meeting of Finra's board of governors, including, among other items, proposed increases to fees paid by Finra member firms to the regulator each year. As a shareholder and operator of a small broker-dealer, I reacted — as I am sure many of my colleagues did — with anger and frustration, as well we should.
Over the past five years, Finra has seen its ranks diminish by nearly 600 firms, or more than 9,000 branch offices, and more than 40,000 securities representatives have dropped their registration. During that same time, customer complaints have fallen by almost half, while new disciplinary actions filed have increased more than 26%.
However, with Finra membership down, the agency budget also has diminished. Few outside the securities industry realize that Finra is a self-regulatory organization, not a government agency, and as a result, receives its funding from its members, as opposed to taxpayers.
Now, after five years of increasing the regulatory burden on brokerage firms and having seen its budget dry up, the SRO's solution is to raise the cost of regulation borne by those brokerage firms that have withstood the increased regulatory scrutiny and endless headaches that come from maintaining a Finra registration.
Exactly what will this solve?
A cursory review of the “More About Finra” page on the SRO's website shows a clear misunderstanding by the organization of whom it serves. As any businessperson knows, in any organization, the clients are those people or companies who pay the bills.
Although Finra claims to serve the investing public, it is funded by firms like mine, and we pay it to make sure that all other brokerage firms and representatives are — like us — running clean shops. We also pay Finra to keep any would-be fraudsters out of our industry and make sure that any legislation passed in Washington won't kill our business.
It seems that Finra no longer recognizes these as its objectives.
If Finra doesn't change its culture and its mindset, and realize who its clients are, be prepared to watch its membership number continue to decline until such a time as it no longer has a budget. As far as many firms go, this may not seem so bad, but to the investing public, it certainly should.
After all, dealing with Finra can mean that firms pass along costs to clients, but no Finra means no oversight, and that is when the investing public really is at risk.
Dock David Treece
Partner
Treece Financial Services Corp.
Toledo, Ohio
