As the 2016 election draws closer, Americans are casting in
responses on how the race has impacted their investment decisions.
Recently, BlackRock released their “Investor Pulse Survey,”
a study examining investing attitudes and behaviors of 1,663 Americans and
1,440 investors during the election season. Among findings, the survey reported
that nearly two-thirds (63%) of Americans say the election has impacted their
investment choices in the past year, and three quarters believe the upcoming
election will have a higher effect on personal investment choices. More so,
one-third of Americans consider the election as a danger to their financial
future, and six in 10 (59%) say their personal savings and investments will
serve as a factor in who they vote for.
“It’s clear that many Americans view the election as a
source of uncertainty, making them less comfortable about investing,” says
Robert Kapito, president of BlackRock.
However, Kapito believes investors shouldn’t have much to
worry about.
“Good investment decision-making hinges on recognizing that
short-term events often do not dramatically alter the long-term trends that
truly determine an investor’s ability to achieve long-term goals,” he says. “Regardless
of how they choose to respond to election uncertainty, investors are well
advised to make sure that their portfolios remain aligned with all of the
realities that will really shape their financial future no matter who occupies
the White House.”
Regardless of which candidate wins, the survey found that 71% of Americans believe market volatility will continue to rise. Due to volatility increase, over half of respondents (52%) say they have found an interest in professional advice.
Furthermore, Americans anticipate related adjustments no matter which party takes over the White House. The survey reports 16% of Americans would increase stock allocations following both a Democratic or Republican victory, and bond allocations would increase for 13% of Americans with a Democratic win, or 12% of Americans following a Republican win.
Regarding retirement concerns, about six in 10 (62%) of Americans cite volatility as a cause for uncertain retirement prospects, with women feeling more irresolute than men, at 65% compared to 58%.
Three-quarters (76%) of Americans believe the president plays an imperative role in warranting financial security during retirement, with both Democrats and Republicans concurring, at 78% and 81% respectively.
More information on BlackRock’s Investor Pulse Survey can be found here.
By using this site you agree to our network wide Privacy Policy.
Two distinct but related enforcement actions were filed in
Massachusetts this week, charging that two broker/dealers engaged in deceptive,
dishonest and unethical conduct in the treatment of clients.
The first of the two actions seeks to commence an
adjudicatory proceeding against Spartan Capital Securities LLC and adviser Dean
Kajouras for violations of the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act, among
other regulations. It alleges that the respondents “engaged in deceptive,
dishonest, and unethical conduct and that Spartan failed reasonably to
supervise its agents or other employees to assure compliance with the act and regulations,
in violation of the act and regulations.”
Details from the text of the complaint show Secretary of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin is not just pushing the
firm to cease rule-breaking activity and to compensate anyone who has been
wronged—Galvin’s office is also seeking to revoke Spartan Capital’s
registration as a broker/dealer in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The
complaint also seeks to bar the firm and the named adviser from “associating
with or registering in the Commonwealth with any state-registered investment
adviser, Securities and Exchange Commission registered investment adviser, and
investment adviser technically excluded from the definition of investment
adviser.”
In terms of specific conduct, the complaint alleges “top-to-bottom
failure” by Spartan and its registered representatives to adhere to the spirit
of its client-centric mission statements and marketing. Among other activities,
the complaint alleges that Spartan, between April 2009 and September 2014, “engaged
in abusive sales practices in the accounts of at least one retired resident of
Massachusetts.”
“Lack of meaningful supervision by Spartan allowed [a sales
agent who has subsequently died] and Kajouras to continue [problematic] activities unchecked, ultimately
depleting the individual’s accounts with high commissions and fees and unsuitable
investment recommendations,” the complaint states.
The background of the alleged abuse goes as follows: In
early 2009, the deceased agent cold called a then-64-year old retired resident of
Massachusetts (referred to in the suit simply as Retired Investor). “At the
time, Retired Investor had been retired for approximately seven years,” the complaint
says. “He had never been an aggressive investor, investing primarily in mutual
funds and conservative fixed income products. Retired Investor had always
relied on a financial adviser to make investment decisions in his accounts.”
Although Retired Investor initially declined to open an
account at Spartan, the complaint suggests he finally relented after continued
solicitation by the agent and invested substantially all of his liquid assets
that he had saved for his retirement. The investor opened an individual
brokerage account in April 2009, funding it with over $222,000 from his
savings.
“Despite Retired Investor’s age, financial situation, and
investment history, Spartan opened his brokerage account with an investment
objective of ‘speculation’ and a corresponding risk tolerance of ‘very
aggressive,’” the complaint continues. “When Spartan sent him forms to sign in
order to open the brokerage account, he received the forms with a letter which
told him to ‘sign . . . where indicated.’ Like the vast majority of customers
at investment firms, Retired Investor trusted that his new financial advisers
had accurately recorded the necessary information to open his accounts and he
signed the documentation as instructed.”
In August 2009 the agent and Spartan CEO John Lowry “convinced
Retired Investor to transfer his third-party IRA worth approximately $162,000
in mutual funds to Spartan with the promise that he would save money on fees by
investing in individual stocks through Spartan … Instead, the agent churned
both accounts, generating a total of $115,791 in commissions and $9,050 in fees
and other costs over only seven months.”
According to the complaint, the annual turnover rate—the
number of times that the securities in an account are replaced with new
securities—was 24.47 in the brokerage account and 9.77 in the IRA, “both well
above the rate indicative of churning.”
The full text of the Spartan complaint is available here.
NEXT: Related
complaint filed against Revere
The second complaint filed by Secretary Galvin’s office
targets Revere Securities LLC, which is accused of “failing to protect at least
one of its investors from harm.” The suit also seeks to bar the firm from providing brokerage services within the Commonwealth, in additional to damages sought for the individual complainant.
The enforcement action “arises out of Respondent Jonathan
Eric Altman's dishonest and unethical conduct and Respondent Revere's failure
to reasonably supervise Altman.” According to the text of the complaint, Revere's
lack of meaningful supervision “allowed Altman to engage in excessive trading,
unauthorized trading, and making unsuitable recommendations, resulting in
substantial losses to an investor totaling at least $290,000.”
Details from the text of the complaint show that, in May of
2012, this investor was 62 years old and became in charge of her finances,
after her husband passed away suddenly.
“Altman assisted Investor One in setting up a
commission-based brokerage account at Revere, and Investor One transferred her
husband's Individual Retirement Accounts at Revere that she inherited into her
Beneficiary IRA,” the complaint explains. “At this time, Investor One had been
a homemaker for at least 20 years and had no previous investment experience.”
According to the complaint, the application for this
investor’s beneficiary IRA listed her as having a “medium” risk tolerance, and
investment objectives of “income,” “growth,” and “speculation.” However, the
investor claims she did not personally check off “speculation” as an investment
objective.
“Rather, she trusted Altman and signed any paperwork that
Altman asked her to sign. Then, from May 2012 through March of 2015, Altman
engaged in dishonest and unethical conduct involving excessive trading,
unauthorized transactions, unsuitable recommendations, and violating Revere's written
policies and procedures,” the complaint continues. “Altman excessively traded
Investor One's Beneficiary IRA despite Investor One's medium risk tolerance,
investment objectives, financial situation, limited investment experience and
needs."
The complaint alleges that, throughout the duration of the
brokerage relationship, Altman exercised control over the beneficiary IRA. From
July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, based on the average portfolio value of all
liquid securities in Investor One's Beneficiary IRA, the annualized turnover rate
was approximately 7.33, and the annualized cost-to-equity ratio was 20%.
“This means that Investor One's Beneficiary IRA would have
had to earn at least 20% annually in order to cover transaction costs and break
even,” the complaint concludes. “During the time period of July 1, 2013 to June
30, 2014, for purchases and sales in Investor One's Beneficiary IRA, Altman and
Revere split $77,060.70 in commissions, which were directly charged to Investor
One. Additionally, Altman and Revere split $18,190 in selling concessions from
syndicate deals purchased in Investor One's Beneficiary IRA.”
Throughout the brokerage relationship, the complaint also
alleges Altman effected unauthorized transactions in the beneficiary IRA.
“Altman testified that he received permission from Investor
One to buy and sell specific investments,” the complaint says. “However,
e-mails between Altman and Investor One suggest Altman regularly failed to
obtain prior approval for trades from Investor One.”
The full text of the Revere complaint is available here.