
Merrill fined for improper sales of mutual fund shares
LOSSES & LAWSUITS
Merrill Lynch was fined $14 million, while Wells Fargo was fined $3 million and Linsco $2.4 million. The amount of the fines approximate the additional commissions the firms received by selling Class B shares rather than Class A mutual fund shares. In addition, each firm is implementing a remediation plan to compensate affected customers – collectively involving more than 29,000 households and nearly 140,000 transactions.
The investigation examined transactions during an 18-month period between January 2002 and July 2003. Investigators focused on 23,000 households at Merrill Lynch with 105,000 Class B and C share transactions; 4,500 households at Wells Fargo with 12,000 Class B and C share trades; and approximately 2,000 households with 22,400 Class B and C share trades at Linsco.
During this period, the three firms recommended and sold Class B and/or Class C share mutual funds to customers without considering or adequately disclosing on a consistent basis that an equal investment in Class A shares would generally have been more advantageous to those customers in view of all relevant considerations.
Before recommending a share class, brokers must consider the customer's anticipated holding period and all costs associated with each share class, including front-end sales charges, annual expenses and contingent deferred sales charges.
The firms also had inadequate supervisory and compliance procedures relating to the manner in which the firms' sales personnel recommended and sold Class B and Class C shares.
"In recommending mutual funds with different share classes, brokers must understand, consider and disclose information about which particular share class would be most beneficial for the customer from an expense perspective," said Barry Goldsmith, NASD executive vice-president and head of enforcement.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
SVB opens floodgates on liquidity buffers debate
European regulator says HQLAs should be booked at fair value, but not everyone agrees
SEC cyber rules risk creating web of confusion and costs
Proposals would require breach notifications, public disclosures and annual cyber assessments
Indonesia readies close-out netting after passing P2SK Law
Bankruptcy law changes remove close-out netting obstacles
Top 10 operational risks: The umpire strikes back
Tougher regulatory enforcement, new consumer rules and rise of ESG are ringing alarm bells
Behnam comments fan JSCC hopes for US client clearing
Japan clearing exec welcomes CFTC chair’s pledge to keep discussing OTC clearing status for non-US houses
SVB wouldn’t happen in Europe, says Deutsche CIB head
Campelli also thinks Credit Suisse’s bailed-in AT1 bonds acted as originally intended
How Finma milked Credit Suisse’s CoCos to close UBS deal
An unusual clause in Swiss AT1 bonds allowed them to be written off, but could others follow suit?