FINRA sanctions don't seem to fit the "crimes."  Let's compare three cases, each involved a registered principal or supervisory person.

1.  Registered Principal Alfonso Fiero of Queens, NY, allegedly maintained an undisclosed corporate brokerage account at an executing broker - i.e., away from his member firm.  He also failed to note its existence on any annual certification form.  Finally, he did not respond to FINRA requests for information and documents. Fiero committed the violations after having been out of the industry for about 5 years.  BTW. his first employer was Fiero Brothers, for whom he worked 2 or 3 years.

Punishment. Fiero was barred from the industry.  (FINRA Case #2008015329001)

2.  Registered Supervisor Matthew John Iskric of Huntington, NY, allegedly misused his firm's corporate credit card on personal expenditures, including purchases of gift cards from multiple retailers.  Charges totaled more than $10,000.  Additionally, at a different firm, Iskric failed to timely update his Form U4.

Punishment. Iskric was barred from the industry.   (FINRA Case #2009017857501)

---

3.  Registered Supervisor Patrick Shawn Kennedy of Raleigh, NC, is alleged to have repeatedly recommended and effected put option trades in the account of a customer who was unemployed and could not afford the risks.  Kennedy also recommended that an elderly couple invest $50,000 in a put options trading strategy with another $57,000 to be invested in mutual funds and bonds.  All told, the customer's account, which had assets of about $267,000, suffered losses exceeding $195,000 from the put option strategy and was forced to liquidate the mutual funds holdings so as to cover put options losses and meet margin requirements.

Punishment. Kennedy received a $5,000 fine and 9-month suspension.  (FINRA Case #2009018671501)

    __________C-I Take-Away.__________________________

It makes sense to compare case #3 against the other 2, as well as against itself.  That's because Cases 1 and 2 resulted in persons being barred from the industry, whereas Case #3 involved a $5K fine and a 9-month suspension. 

Case #3, On Absolute Terms - i.e., against itself.  The fines and sanctions Kennedy received in Case #3, without regard to the others, made no sense whatsoever. He paid a $5K fine, after unsuitably exposing his customers to active trading - which no doubt earned him significant commissions.  He also saddled his elderly customers with at least $195K in losses and margin interest - not insignificant when the account had $267K in assets to start with.

How does one begin to equate $5,000 with $195,000 in losses?  You don't because you can't.  Somewhere along the line, it would have seemed appropriate for FINRA to disgorge the firm or Kennedy of commissions earned on inappropriate trades.  Either or both should have been require to make customers whole for losses on unsuitable losses.  Nowhere is this mentioned in FINRA documentation - i.e., July Report on Disciplinary Actions or in CRD reports.

As far as Kennedy's 9-nmoth suspension, who knows what, if any, impact that may have had on his life.  Perhaps he was looking to get out of the industry and used this as an opportunity to get another job.  If that was true, the net effect on his life would have been "zero."

Case #3, on a comparative basis.   Pass on Case #1.  There, Fiero was barred for not disclosing information on a certification form.  Mot likely, he was barred for ignoring FINRA requests for information.  That's SOP for FINRA (standard operating procedures. 

In case #2, Iskric was barred for credit card theft from his member firm - over an extended period.  With $10,000 at issue, it is somewhat hard to justify him being barred for life.  And who would ever take the position that a $10,000 crime against an employee is worse than a customer's $195,000 loss?     Kennedy further committed a gross breach of trust.  In the end, there's no visible way to compare Cases #2 and #3, in terms of the "crimes" and their "sanctions."

Isn't it time, FINRA disclosed its actions with more transparency?