A registered rep with Internet Securities of Oakland, CA recently faced a punishment choice from FINRA: either take a 100-day suspension and $15,000 fine or be barred from the industry.  Interestingly, Matthew Dooley chose the barring. Dooley recommended that a pair of customers purchase approximately 15 different leveraged exchange-traded funds.  They were speculative instruments designed for intra-day trading, and as such were inappropriate for Dooley's relatively conservative customers. One customer lost $26,543 on ETF transactions and the other lost $18,764.  That amounted to 39% and 43% of the original funds in their accounts, respectively.  Dooley received a commission on 114 of 121 purchases made for the 2 customer's accounts.  A number of the ETFs were held for longer than a day, as is normal, which suggests Dooley did not fully understand their purpose.  Therefore, he could not have reasonably suggested them to his customers. Additionally, when the second customer directed Dooley to quit with the ETFs and start buying bonds, he continued the ETF strategy.  However, Dooley agreed to pay the customer $1,000 a month for 18 months in a bid to cover that customer's losses.  He made one payment of $2,500. Because he offered terrible advice to his clients and then shared in one client's account to try to offset the damages, Dooley was originally slapped with a 100-day suspension and $15,000 in fines by FINRA.  Instead, he took an abnormal route: he didn't provide an information, as requested by FINRA, regarding his trading strategies. Dooley skipped out on the proceedings altogether, which warranted an immediate banning by FINRA.  Interestingly, FINRA decided that the banning was punishment enough, and waived the $15,000 fine.  That leaves one question of Dooley: If the 100-day suspension meant he was probably out of work either way, was the banning the cheaper option? [FINRA Disciplinary Proceeding No. 20090209303-01]