FINRA Orders Raymond James to Pay $1.69 Million in Restitution

15,500 Raymond James investors were charged unfair and unreasaonable commissions on securities transactions, FINRA says

At Raymond James' Women's Symposium on Sept. 23 (from left), RJA President Dennis Zank; RJFS COO Chet Helck; and Dick Averitt, CEO of RJFS. At Raymond James' Women's Symposium on Sept. 23 (from left), RJA President Dennis Zank; RJFS COO Chet Helck; and Dick Averitt, CEO of RJFS.

More On Legal & Compliance

from The Advisor's Professional Library
  • Scope of the Fiduciary Duty Owed by Investment Advisors A fiduciary obligation goes beyond the suitability standard typically owed by registered representatives of broker-dealer firms to clients. The relationship is built on the premise that the advisor will always do the right thing for the person or entity receiving advice.
  • Client Communication and Miscommunication RIA policies and procedures must specify what type of communications should be retained. The safest course of action is for RIAs to retain all communications—to clients, from clients, and about client accounts.  To comply with fiduciary obligations, communications must be thorough and not mislead.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced Thursday that it had ordered Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (RJA) and Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. (RJFS) to pay restitution of $1.69 million to more than 15,500 investors who were charged unfair and unreasonable commissions on securities transactions. FINRA also fined RJA $225,000 and RJFS $200,000.

FINRA found that from Jan. 1, 2006, to Oct. 31, 2010, RJA and RJFS used automated commission schedules for equity transactions that charged more than 15,500 customers nearly $1.69 million in excessive commissions on over 27,000 transactions involving, in most instances, low-priced securities.

RJA and RJFS neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings.

According to FINRA, the firms’ supervisory systems were “inadequate because the firms established inflated schedules and rates without proper consideration of the factors necessary to determine the fairness of the commissions, including the type of security and the size of the transaction.”

Steve Hollister, public relations manager for Raymond James, told AdvisorOne in an email message that Raymond James was “pleased to have resolved this matter with FINRA.” The commissions that would be refunded under the agreement with FINRA, he said, "involved primarily low-priced securities that were determined by an automated commission schedule, which we revised on July 1, 2011, upon notification of FINRA’s findings. The affected trades represent less than 0.1% of the total equity trades executed by Raymond James during the period reviewed by FINRA. The average impact per affected account over the five-year time period is approximately $110.”

Brad Bennett, FINRA Executive VP and Chief of Enforcement, said in a statement the same day that, “Raymond James failed to adequately monitor its supervisory systems and as a result, both Raymond James & Associates and Raymond James Financial Services overcharged thousands of customers on their securities transactions.” Broker-dealers, he said, “must ensure that their automated systems set commission charges that are fair to investors.”

FINRA said it required the firms to revise their automated commission schedules to conform to the requirements of the Fair Prices and Commissions Rule. In addition to requiring RJA and RJFS to repay approximately $1.69 million in overcharges, FINRA said each firm is required to calculate and repay additional overcharges from Nov. 1, 2010, through the date that each firm revised its schedule.

Reprints Discuss this story
This is where the comments go.