NYSE firm fined for illegal broker payments
NEW YORK – Van der Moolen Specialists USA, LLC ("VDM"), an NYSE member firm, has been fined $3.5 million for illegally compensating unregistered brokers or finders, NYSE Regulation has said.
The firm's stock loan department has since been closed for the supervisory deficiencies and books and records violations that led to the misconduct. NYSE Regulation alleges that the firm's stock loan department engaged in numerous transactions at away-from-market rebate rates, and made payments to finders who performed no legitimate business function.
VDM completely lacked supervision of its stock loan business resulting in millions of dollars in fees being improperly channelled to finders who did nothing to earn them, according to Susan L. Merrill, chief of enforcement at NYSE Regulation. "Firms must ensure that services are being engaged for bona fide business purposes, and must have independent controls to verify that services paid for have actually been performed," she said.
NYSE Regulation charges that from January through December 2004, the employees of VDM's stock loan department borrowed securities from complicit counterparties at rebate rates significantly below the prevailing market rebate rates for those securities, and then loaned those securities to third parties at higher rebate rates including market rates.
The difference between the below-market rates at which the securities were borrowed and the higher rates at which the securities were loaned represented the firm's gross revenues on these transactions. These actions violate Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 thereunder, and NYSE Rules 342, 440 and 476(a)(6).
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.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
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. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Capital neutrality key to completing Basel III, says Quarles
Former Republican Fed vice-chair thinks Hill or Bowman could help revive stalled prudential rules
Review of 2024: as markets took a breather, firms switched focus
In the absence of major crises and rules deadlines, financial firms revamped strategy, services and practices
Dora flood pitches banks against vendors
Firms ask vendors for late addendums sometimes unrelated to resiliency, requiring renegotiation
Swiss report fingers Finma on Credit Suisse capital ratio
Parliament says bank would have breached minimum requirements in 2022 without regulatory filter
‘It’s not EU’: Do government bond spreads spell eurozone break-up?
Divergence between EGB yields is in the EU’s make-up; only a shared risk architecture can reunite them
CFTC weighs third-party risk rules for CCPs
Clearing houses could be required to formally identify and monitor critical vendors
Why there is no fence in effective regulatory relationships
A chief risk officer and former bank supervisor says regulators and regulated are on the same side
Snap! Derivatives reports decouple after Emir Refit shake-up
Counterparties find new rules have led to worse data quality, threatening regulators’ oversight of systemic risk