BROWSE BY TOPIC
Stories of Interest
- State Street Challenging BNY Mellon As Largest Custody Bank
- Changes to FINRA Advisory Committees: Phase 1
- SEC Approves CAT Fee Dispute Resolution Process
- Boston-Area Consultant & Friend Settle SEC Insider Trading Charges
- SEC Chair Clayton: Statement on Status of the Consolidated Audit Trail ('CAT')
- Goldman to Launch $5bn Fund with China Investment Corp.
- Wells Fargo Launches Robo-Adviser Targeting Millenial Investors
- Barclays Fails to End U.S. 'Dark Pool' Class Action
- Goldman Sachs' Chief Risk Officer, Craig Broderick, to Retire
- Time to Renew FINRA Registrations - B/D, IA, Agent, IA Rep, Branches
- New Jersey’s Next Governor Could Be a Democrat Who Worked at Goldman Sachs
- FINRA New York Region Networking Seminar - December 1st
- SEC Approves “Pay-to-Play” and Related Rules for Capital Acquisition Brokers
- Hedge Fund Giant Paul Singer Targeted for Destruction by Steve Bannon
- Saudi Arabia's arrest of Prince Alwaleed 'would be like arresting Warren Buffett or Bill Gates' in the US
- Arrest of Billionaire Saudi Prince Touches Sizable Stakes - Citigroup, Twitter, Lyft
- New York Fed President William Dudley set to announce retirement
- FINRA Arbitration Panel Rules Against ex-LPL Broker in $30Mn Lawsuit vs. Firm
- OOPS! Goldman, JPMorgan, BofA Fail in Pricing an IPO
- Former Merrill Broker Pleads Guilty to Fee Fraud, Faces Up To 25 Years
We seek to provide information, insights and direction that may enable the Financial Community to effectively and efficiently operate in a regulatory risk-free environment by curating content from all over the web.
Stay Informed with the latest fanancialish news.
NEWSLETTERS & ALERTS
Broker Opens Pandora’s Box After Altering a Customer’s Annuity Account Profile
by Howard Haykin
Robert Hurley agreed to a $5K fine and a 2-month suspension to settle FINRA charges that he altered a customer’s signed variable annuity distribution form without the customer’s consent.
BACKGBOUND. Hurley, a resident of Agawam, MA, has 33 years with 3 firms. He holds a Series 6 (Investment Company Products/Variable Contracts Representative Exam) license. For whatever reason, Hurley left Pruco Securities in January 2016 after 32 years. He spent 5 months with LPL Financial before joining Key Investment Services. However, Key Investments U5’d him 2 months later in November 2016 because “RR admitted to altering and initialing for the client without the client's consent on a distribution form after the client had signed it.” Hurley had no prior disciplinary history.
FINRA FINDINGS. On 10/20/16, while registered with Key Investment Services, Hurley altered a customer’s signed variable annuity (“V/A”) distribution form without the customer’s consent.
- One alteration changed the payment frequency from monthly to annual.
- Another alteration modified how payments would be calculated.
- Hurley also placed the customer’s initials next to both alterations.
The alterations caused the customer to receive the following month a much larger V/A distribution payment than anticipated.
FINANCIALISH TAKE AWAYS. FINRA levied a $5K fine and a 2-month suspension – a relatively heavy sanction, but apparently a reasonable one. However, the sanctions are such that the broker can re-enter the industry with another FINRA member firm. And that’s what concerns me. And my concerns arise not for what FINRA details in its case analysis, but for what FINRA leaves out.
Let’s begin with some unanswered questions.
- Why did Hurley leave Pruco, his only Wall Street employer, after 32 years?
- Why did Hurley last only 5 months with LPL Financial, which he joined just 3 months after leaving Pruco?
- What prompted Hurley to commit a violative act after 32 years without a single disciplinary disclosure?
- What prompted Hurley to make unauthorized changes to his customer’s V/A account that apparently had no impact to his compensation?
- Did Hurley seem troubled or unstable during interviews with FINRA investigators?
- Did FINRA investigators interview Pruco personnel about the circumstances of Hurley’s departure?
Context is everything, here. And with answers to these 6 questions, FINRA may have had justification for barring Hurley from the industry - i.e., that he posed significant danger to customers of a financial securities firm. Such a determination would have required “out-of-the-box” thinking, and perhaps FINRA personnel are either incapable of, or prohibited from, doing just that. Which would be shame because the potential for future danger is quite relevant in this case - as it is in many other cases.
And so the jury remains out on Mr. Hurley.
This case was reported in FINRA Disciplinary Actions for September 2017.
For details on this case, go to ... FINRA Disciplinary Actions Online, and refer to Case #2016052582701.