Posts Tagged ‘Investment’

Before you Invest in a Mutual Fund, Learn the Basics. Fees, Costs and Undisclosed Risk Can Make Mutual Funds Unsuitable for Investors.

May 13th, 2011

Mutual Funds 101
Mutual funds are sold by companies that pool money (capital) from many investors. This capital is then invested in bonds, stocks and/or other securities. Investors in the fund all have shares, and these shares represent a part of the fund’s holdings.

If you’re interested in making an investment, a mutual fund may or may not be the right choice for you. Like all investments, they come with many different levels of risk. They aren’t insured or guaranteed by financial institutions or government agencies, even those sold by banks. However, because mutual funds are often a mix of various bonds and/or stocks, the risk is some mutual funds is “spread out” or diversified. That said, some mutual funds are not diversified, and it is important to understand that a mutual fund investment can be very high risk, or very low risk, depending upon the holdings and the goals of the fund. Each fund must be looked at individually to determine if it is appropriate for the investor, in the same manner as any individual stock or other investment.

Mutual funds are managed by professional fund managers. These managers invest the money investors contribute into individual stocks, bonds and other securities. And because mutual funds buy and sell securities in large amounts at one time, they usually incur fewer fees, thus operating in a cost-efficient manner. However, it is very important to carefully examine prior to purchase all of the fees and costs associated with the fund you are purchasing as they can vary greatly and take a significant bite out of your return.

If you feel your financial advisor placed you in inappropriate mutual fund investments and/or failed to disclose the fees and costs associated with investment or that the underlying holdings of the fund were beyond your tolerance for risk, you may have a case. Call Carlson Law at 858-544-9300 for a free consultation.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Broker Fraud, Fiduciary Duty Breach, Investment Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, Securities Arbitration, Securities Fraud, Securities Law, Securities Litigation, Stock Fraud, Stock Loss | Comments (0)

Variable Annuity Exchanges & Replacements: Annuity Loss – Annuity Fraud – Did You Get Shafted by Your Broker?

May 11th, 2011

There is a continuing problem for investors relating to the improper sale or switching by investment advisors of variable annuities that can be annuity fraud and result is annuity losses. Many older investors have been counseled by their brokers to replace their old variable annuity contracts with new ones. In many cases it may be unsuitable and result in the creation of fees and commissions for the advisor, surrender charges for the investor and new long term non-liquid investment. Furthermore, adding insult to injury, in some cases advisors have neglected to exercise due diligence by assuring that the exchange of those annuities was tax free under Internal Revenue Code (Section 1035).

If done properly, exchanging variable annuities should be tax free.
In a tax-free 1035 exchange, the owner of a variable annuity replaces the current contract with a new contract. No tax is paid on the investment gains or income from the old variable annuity. If, however, an investor gives up his or her old annuity for cash and then uses that money to buy a new annuity, he or she will have to pay taxes on the old annuity.

Variable annuities can be fraught with hidden costs.
An additional problem with variable annuities is that exchanging and replacing them often results in surrender charges. Customers must pay these charges when annuities are surrendered before the end of their given surrender period. Usually, that’s six to eight years from the purchase date. Because surrender charges reduce the amount of money available for reinvestment in a new annuity, they also lower an investor’s potential return. And if that weren’t bad enough, the new replacement annuity has a new surrender period, so funds are ordinarily locked into place for another six to eight years.

In general, seniors shouldn’t invest in them.
Because of the risks, high fees and surrender charges associated with variable annuities, they’re poor financial choices for most investors over 65. In fact, California law requires that selling agents prove that an annuity replacement is of “substantial benefit” to their senior clients.

FINRA oversight of variable annuities is increasing.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has recently implemented new rules regarding broker recommendations to purchase and exchange variable annuities, making variable annuities one of the few securities products with its own suitability requirements. These new rules require that brokerage firms put supervisory procedures into practice for the detection and prevention of “inappropriate exchanges.”

Should you contact a securities attorney?
If you’re an older investor whose financial advisor has advised to exchange or replace variable annuities, resulting in a loss in your annuity either fraom annuity fraud or simple negligence, call Carlson Law for a free consultation at 619-544-9300. Furthermore, if your broker failed to facilitate a tax-free 1035 exchange of variable annuities, contact our firm. Your broker may be liable for any or all fees, taxes and financial loss you incurred as a result.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Fiduciary Duty Breach, Investment Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, Securities Arbitration, Securities Fraud, Securities Law, Securities Litigation, Stock Fraud, Stock Loss | Comments (4)

MEDICAL CAPITAL INVESTOR AWARDED $400,000 BY FINRA ARBITRATOR

April 29th, 2011
Seal of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commi...

Image via Wikipedia

In 2010 Peak Securities, a brokerage house that promoted and sold Medical Capital securities, was found guilty of fraud, negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty by a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) mediator. In this award against brokers selling fraudulent Medical Capital investments, an investor who experienced financial loss due to Medical Capital securities received a $400,000.00 award.

 

Hundreds of investors who bought fraudulent Medical Capital notes through brokerage firms have filed arbitration claims against those firms.  And in our opinion, this judgment for a Medical Capital investor will be the first of many.

The SEC exposes Medical Capital fraud.

The heart of a 2010 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) complaint concerning investment fraud focused on Medical Capital.

Medical Capital professed to supply financial backing to providers of healthcare. According to company execs, they bought the accounts receivables of these providers and made loans to them. The accounts receivables were supposedly sold as notes to investors via private placements, also known as Regulation D offerings.

But it appears to have been a Ponzi scheme.

Medical Capital spent millions of investor dollars on administrative costs. Executives also spent millions on a Hollywood film, a yacht, and other extravagant items. And they failed to make interest and principal payments in a timely manner. They even pretended that no previous notes had been defaulted on.

But that’s not all.

According to the SEC receiver, hundreds of millions in medical receivables that had been packaged as Regulation D offerings were either overvalued or fictional. That’s right! Some had never even existed.

It’s been estimated that 20,000 investors bought $2.2 billion worth of Medical Capital notes, approximately $1 billion of which are in default. And that means massive losses for investors.

Comparable cases are pending.

In early 2010, another brokerage firm dealing in Medical Capital notes was sued, this time by the Massachusetts Securities Division of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth. According to the lawsuit, Securities America, Inc. committed wide scale fraud–hundreds of millions of dollars worth of it—by marketing Medical Capital notes. The state alleges that the firm not only failed to perform with due diligence, but it also failed to disclose obvious risks to its investors, despite the urgings of its own president and a third party.

At Carlson Law, we believe that the arbitration award against Peak Securities foreshadows future arbitration awards against Securities America and the other brokerage firms that sold Medical Capital as well as other fraudulent and/or high-risk private placements such as Provident and DBSI.  For further questions and information, contact our securities fraud attorney in San Diego today.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Broker Fraud, Investment Fraud, Securities Arbitration, Securities Fraud, Securities Law, Securities Litigation, Stock Fraud | Comments (15)