FINRA recently reported its February 2011 arbitration statistics. For the two-month period ended February 28, 2011, 837 claims were filed. This represents a decrease of 9% as compared to the number of cases filed in February 2010 (918).


The number of securities arbitration cases that closed during the first two months of 2011 increased by 16% (957 compared to 828 as of February 28, 2010). However, the average turnaround time for cases that go to an arbitration hearing also increased to 14 months from 11.8 months (16%). Approximately 19% of closed arbitration cases were decided by arbitrators, while 81% were settled (through negotiation or mediation), withdrawn, or closed for other reasons.


The most frequent securities and investment related claims involved in arbitration continue to be breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation (fraud), negligence, breach of contract, and suitability. Mutual funds and common stock also remain the most common type of securities involved in arbitration claims.


Investors have also prevailed in a larger percentage of cases decided (by arbitration hearing or on papers submitted by the parties). For the two-month period ended February 28, 2011, 91 cases had been decided and investors prevailed in 46 (51%) of those cases. This is good news for investors as it shows a continued trend in securities arbitration awards being issued in favor of investors. It is also the first time in recent years where the percentage of arbitration claims resolved in favor of investors exceeds 50%. This percentage also does not include cases that settled in favor of the investor, which FINRA notes to be approximately 76% in 2010.


The Kueser Law Firm represents investors in securities arbitration. If you feel that your investments have been mismanaged, please contact a securities fraud attorney to discuss your rights. If you would like to contact The Kueser Law Firm, please visit e-mail or call the firm at (816) 374-5865 to discuss your rights.


This was originally posted on the Securities Arbitration Blawg.

How do attorneys decide which securities fraud cases to pursue?

Also available at KansasCityLaw.tv
In this video, Jason M. Kueser discusses factors that securities fraud attorneys often evaluate in determining which cases to pursue. This often includes a number of factors, including (1) individual aspects of the customer and the customer’s situation; (2) the amount of investment loss suffered by the investor; (3) the type or types of investments involved; and (4) whether the stockbroker, adviser, or brokerage firm has previously regulatory issues. There are other factors that are involved, as well.

If you feel you have been the victim of investment fraud or securities fraud, please contact an attorney. If you would like to speak with The Kueser Law Firm, please call the firm at (816) 374-5865 or send us an href=”mailto:jason@jmkesquire.com&subject=Contact from Kueser Law Firm blog”>e-mail.


This video is provided for informational purposes only and nothing contained herein is or should be constituted as legal advice. If you have questions related to any legal topic, you should consult with an attorney and should not rely solely upon information provided via the internet.
The choice of an attorney is an important one and should not be based solely upon advertisements such as this website. Past results afford no guarantee of future results. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits. *Any information submitted via this website may not be secure and/or confidential. Merely contacting this firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

How can investors review the background of a stockbroker or investment adviser?

Also available at KansasCityLaw.tv
In this video, Jason M. Kueser discusses how investors can research the background of stockbrokers, financial advisors, and Registered Investment Advisers (RIAs). Background information related to stockbrokers and financial advisors can be obtained using FINRA’s BrokerCheck tool. Background and other information related to Registered Investment Advisers (RIAs) can be found on the Investment Adviser Public Disclosure website. In addition to these sites, there are various third-party sites/services that provide information related to stockbrokers, financial advisors, and investment advisers.

This video is provided for informational purposes only and nothing contained herein is or should be constituted as legal advice. If you have questions related to any legal topic, you should consult with an attorney and should not rely solely upon information provided via the internet.
The choice of an attorney is an important one and should not be based solely upon advertisements such as this website. Past results afford no guarantee of future results. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits. *Any information submitted via this website may not be secure and/or confidential. Merely contacting this firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

Also available at KansasCityLaw.tv
In this video, Jason M. Kueser discusses typical causes of action in securities cases. These typical actions are: (1) fraud, (2) securities fraud, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) breach of contract, (5) violation of state securities laws, (6) violation of federal securities laws, and (7) negligence.

This video is provided for informational purposes only and nothing contained herein is or should be constituted as legal advice. If you have questions related to any legal topic, you should consult with an attorney and should not rely solely upon information provided via the internet.
The choice of an attorney is an important one and should not be based solely upon advertisements such as this website. Past results afford no guarantee of future results. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits. *Any information submitted via this website may not be secure and/or confidential. Merely contacting this firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

Also available at KansasCityLaw.tv

This video is provided for informational purposes only and nothing contained herein is or should be constituted as legal advice. If you have questions related to any legal topic, you should consult with an attorney and should not rely solely upon information provided via the internet. All content provided on this blog are subject to the Disclaimer at the bottom of the page.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently released its arbitration statistics for the month/year ended December 2010.

For the year, there were 20% fewer cases filed (5,680 v. 7,137 in 2009) and there were 6,241 cases closed (a 37% increase over 2009). Of these cases, 22% were resolved by arbitration hearing, 52% were resolved by direct settlement between the parties, 10% were resolved through mediation, and 16% of cases were either withdrawn or resolved through “other” method.

Results for investors also improved in 2010, as 47% cases that were decided by an arbitration panel resulted in an award of damages to the customer. This reflects a 2% increase over the results in 2009, and a 10% increase compared to arbitration claims decided by arbitration panels in 2007 — the worst year, for investors, in arbitration claims over the past six years.

The overall turnaround time for cases closed during the year also increased to 12.7 months (from 11.5 months in 2009). For cases that are resolved after an arbitration hearing, the turnaround time increased to 15 months (from 14 months in 2009).

The most common claims in arbitration were: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Negligence; (3) Fraud/Misrepresentation; (4) Failure to Supervise; and, (5) Breach of Contract. The most common type of securities involved in arbitration claims were mutual funds and common stocks.

The Kueser Law Firm represents investors in securities arbitration. If you feel that your investments have been mismanaged, please contact the firm to discuss your rights.

Updated February 1, 2011 at 6:45 PM (CST).

Leveraged ETFs have recently returned to the news as Direxion announced the release of two new funds. As reported on Marketwatch.com, one of these new funds seeks to obtain returns equal to 300% of the two-year Treasury yield, while the other fund seeks to obtain returns equal to 300% of the inverse return of the two-year Treasury yield (in other words, when the Treasury yield declines, the investor profits).

Despite the repeated warnings issued by FINRA and the SEC as to the tremendous risk presented by leveraged ETFs, it appears that these fund families are forging “full steam ahead.” The announcement from Direxion comes only weeks after its rival, ProShares, released eight additional leveraged ETFs. Four of the new ProShares funds seek to obtain returns equal to 300% of the daily return of the Nasdaq 100, Dow Jones Industrial Average, Standard & Poors 400 Index, and the Russell 2000 Index. The other four funds seek returns equal to 300% of the inverse daily return of these same indices (again, investors in these funds profit when the value of the respective index declines).

Leveraged ETFs invest their shareholders’ money in futures and/or derivatives in order to multiply the daily return of an index. Some leveraged ETFs seek a return that is 200% or even 300% of the daily performance of the index. Inverse ETFs work in much the same way, except that these funds seek a return that is equal to 100%, 200%, or even 300% of the opposite of the daily performance of the index. With these funds, an investor actually profits when the index declines in value. Typical leveraged ETFs and inverse ETFs reset each day and therefore, over periods longer than one day, their performance can vary considerably from the index.

Leveraged ETFs may be appropriate investments for professional asset managers and highly sophisticated investors; however, in this author’s opinion, leveraged ETFs are inappropriate for the vast majority of individual investors. Given the level of volatility in the stock markets in recent times, leveraged ETFs expose investors to tremendous potential for loss in a short period of time. Furthermore, in various instances in the retail setting, leveraged ETFs have been sold to investors without full disclosures related to these risks.

The Kueser Law Firm represents investors who have lost money in leveraged ETFs. If you are concerned that your investments have been mismanaged, contact us to learn more about your rights. This entry was originally posted on the firm’s Investment Fraud Blawg, Securities Fraud Blawg, and Stockbroker Fraud Blawg.

Technorati : inverse etf, investment fraud, leveraged etf, securities fraud
Del.icio.us : inverse etf, investment fraud, leveraged etf, securities fraud
Zooomr : inverse etf, investment fraud, leveraged etf, securities fraud

FINRA recently reported its October 2009 arbitration statistics. As of October 31, 2009, 6,113 claims were filed, compared to only 3,971 as of October 31, 2008, an increase of 54%. FINRA also reported that 3,697 cases were closed through October and that the average turnaround time for cases that go to an arbitration hearing has declined by 9% (14.3 months from 15.8 months).

The most frequent securities and investment claims/controversies involved in arbitration continue to be breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation/fraud, negligence, and breach of contract. Mutual funds and common stock also remain the most common type of securities involved in arbitration claims.

Investors have also prevailed in a larger percentage of cases decided (by hearing or on the papers). As of October 31, 2009, 516 cases had been decided and investors prevailed in 236 (46%) of those cases. This does not include cases that settled in favor of the investor.

The Kueser Law Firm represents investors in securities arbitration. If you feel that your investments have been mismanaged, please contact our firm to discuss your rights.

Technorati : Securities arbitration, investment fraud, securities fraud
Del.icio.us : Securities arbitration, investment fraud, securities fraud
Zooomr : Securities arbitration, investment fraud, securities fraud

ProFunds Group, one of the largest issuers of leveraged and inverse ETFs recently issued a warning that some of its leveraged and inverse ETFs may not be suitable for all investors. In the prospectus dated October 1, 2009, the company repeatedly states:

The Fund is different from most exchangetraded funds in that it seeks leveraged returns and only on a daily basis. The Fund also is riskier than similarly benchmarked exchange-traded funds that do not use leverage. Accordingly, the Fund may not be suitable for all investors and should be used only by knowledgeable investors who understand the potential consequences of seeking daily leveraged investment results. Shareholders should actively monitor their investments.

(See, e.g., prospectus at pp. 49, 54, 59, 64, 69, 74, 79.)

While additional disclosures are an improvement, this disclosure is still somewhat vague. It is similar to telling someone that an investment is suitable for them if they are seeking growth of their investment. Who isn’t seeking growth of their investments? I have never heard anyone say “I am looking for an investment that will cause me to lose money.”

In addition, many investors who are sold leveraged ETFs such as these never receive a copy of the prospectus. If an investor does not receive the prospectus, the disclosure does not protect them (however, it could protect the fund company from liability).

Leveraged ETFs invest their shareholders’ money in futures and/or derivatives in order to multiply the daily return of an index. Some leveraged ETFs seek a return that is 200% or even 300% of the daily performance of the index. Inverse ETFs work in much the same way, except that these funds seek a return that is equal to 100%, 200%, or even 300% of the opposite of the daily performance of the index. With these funds, an investor actually profits when the index declines in value. Typical leveraged ETFs and inverse ETFs reset each day and therefore, over periods longer than one day, their performance can vary considerably from the index. In addition to ProFunds, the most popular leveraged ETFs and inverse ETFs are managed by Rydex and Direxion.

FINRA has already declared that leveraged ETFs are typically unsuitable for retail investors. Therefore, the announcement by ProFunds is not a revelation. If your stockbroker or financial advisor has sold you any leveraged ETFs or inverse ETFs, or purchased any leveraged ETFs or inverse ETFs in your accounts, you may be entitled to recover any losses on these investments. The Kueser Law Firm represents investors who were sold leveraged ETFs and inverse ETFs. If you are concerned that your investments have been mismanaged, contact us to learn more about your rights.

This post is also available on our Investment Fraud Blawg, Securities Fraud Blawg, and Stockbroker Fraud Blawg.

Technorati : ProFunds, ProShares, inverse etf, investment fraud, leveraged etf, securities fraud
Del.icio.us : ProFunds, ProShares, inverse etf, investment fraud, leveraged etf, securities fraud
Zooomr : ProFunds, ProShares, inverse etf, investment fraud, leveraged etf, securities fraud

On October 1, 2009, Colorado Securities Commissioner Fred Joseph announced that the Securities Division had filed a complaint against Stifel, Nicolaus & Company. According to the Division’s news release, the complaint alleges:

Stifel Nicolaus falsely represented auction rate securities as liquid, short-term investments to Colorado investors without discussing the risks. These representations gave investors a false sense of security that the investments would always be liquid when auction rate securities, in fact, faced significant, inherent liquidity risks.

A copy of the Notice of Charges is available in pdf format here.

Auction rate securities, which are also referred to as auction rate preferred shares, ARS, ARPS, and MARS, to name a few, have been at the epicenter of regulatory investigations across the country. Auction rate securities are long-term (or perpetual) investments that traded in periodic “auctions.” They are designed to allow companies, mutual funds, municipalities, and other organizations to borrow money for a long-term period while paying short-term rates of interest, which were reset during the periodic auctions. It was in these auctions that investors who held the securities could also sell their holdings if they needed to have access to cash. Because these auctions occurred on a relatively frequent basis (i.e., weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly), investors had the ability to sell their positions and obtain cash in a relatively short period of time.

For years, Wall Street firms sold auction rate securities as short-term, cash equivalent investments that paid marginally higher rates of interest as compared to other short-term investments. What these firms did not tell their customers was that the liquidity of the auction rate securities markets was entirely dependent on the ability and willingness of these same firms to participate in the auctions — in other words, these firms had to be willing and able to purchase the securities that were not purchased by the other auction market participants. In most cases, these firms were purchasing more securities than the other market participants. The firms (and their representatives) did not disclose these critical facts, but rather, only disclosed that the interest rates paid on the securities was reset at the auctions. In addition, these firms generally failed to inform investors that they would not be able to access their invested capital if the auctions froze.

In 2007, these Wall Street firms came under massive liquidity problems. As a result, these firms made a decision to cease participation in the auction rate markets, leaving investors across the country with illiquid investments that typically paid short-term rates of interest. In some cases, the auction rate securities paid no interest for months at a time. Therefore, investors were left holding a bag of illiquid long-term securities that paid little, if any interest.

Several class actions have been filed across the country on behalf of auction rate securities investors. In addition, numerous securities arbitration claims have been filed by investors. Some of these cases, as well as action by state regulators, has resulted in redemption of some investors’ auction rate securities. However, many investors remain stuck with these illiquid investments.

If you own auction rate securities that have not been redeemed, you may want to contact an attorney to discuss your rights. The Kueser Law Firm is a boutique legal practice that focuses its practice on protecting the rights of investors and recovering investment losses for companies and individuals. You may contact us by completing the form to the right, or by visiting our website.

This post is also available on our Investment Fraud Blawg, Securities Fraud Blawg, and Stockbroker Fraud Blawg.

Technorati : ARS, Auction Rate Preferred Shares, Auction Rate Securities, Colorado, Fraud, Stifel
Del.icio.us : ARS, Auction Rate Preferred Shares, Auction Rate Securities, Colorado, Fraud, Stifel
Zooomr : ARS, Auction Rate Preferred Shares, Auction Rate Securities, Colorado, Fraud, Stifel