Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

FINRA Moves Toward SEC Anti-Churning Proposal
June 25, 2018
On April 18, the SEC voted to propose major rule changes to reconcile and clarify the standards of conduct that apply to broker-dealers and investment advisers. See "SEC Regulation Best Interest: Charting a Course for Securities and Annuity Sales, Avoiding Collision and Potential Regulatory and Litigation Issues" on page 8. Among other things, the SEC’s proposal would require that a registered broker-dealer have a reasonable basis for believing that any "series" of securities transactions it recommends is not excessive, even if each transaction in that series, viewed individually, is in the customer’s best interest.

The SEC’s proposing release specifically recognizes that this requirement — which addresses a practice commonly known as "churning" of customer accounts — omits a key element necessary to establish a churning violation under federal securities law anti-fraud requirements or under the current "Quantitative Suitability" obligation under FINRA’s Rule 2111. Specifically, under these provisions, a churning violation arises only if the broker-dealer has actual or de facto control over the customer’s account, a limitation that the SEC did not include in its proposal.

On April 20, however, FINRA proposed to amend its Quantitative Suitability obligation so that — like the SEC’s anti-churning proposal issued two days earlier — it would no longer be limited to cases in which the broker-dealer has actual or de facto control over the customer’s account. FINRA stated that it had reconsidered this limitation in light of the SEC’s proposal and FINRA’s experience. In particular, FINRA’s notice proposing this amendment explained that:

  • Disputes can arise as to whether a broker-dealer has actual or de facto control over an account;
  • Unscrupulous broker-dealers can use the current limitation as a shield against FINRA sanctions; and
  • It is fair and appropriate for FINRA to hold broker-dealers accountable for their recommendations, even if another party decides whether to implement those recommendations.

It can be expected that FINRA will continue to adjust other current positions in response to the SEC’s ongoing consideration of the standards of conduct applicable to broker-dealers and investment advisers. For example, FINRA’s notice stated that it will consider the potential impact of the SEC’s proposal for broker-dealer recommendations, if adopted, on FINRA’s suitability rule more generally.
Authored By
Image: Thomas C. Lauerman
Thomas C. Lauerman
Related Practices
Securities Transactions and Compliance Financial Services Regulatory
Related Industries
Life, Annuity, and Retirement Solutions Securities & Investment Companies
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.