Showing posts with label Investigations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Investigations. Show all posts

Friday, April 3, 2020

Luckin Coffee Investigation

Luckin Coffee has notified the SEC and the public that it's Board has formed a Special Committee, along with attorneys and forensic accountants to investigate allegations that beginning in the second quarter of 2019, Mr. Jian Liu, the chief operating officer and a director of the Company, and several employees reporting to him, had engaged in certain misconduct, including fabricating certain transactions. The Special Committee recommended certain interim remedial measures, including the suspension of Mr. Jian Liu and such employees implicated in the misconduct and the suspension and termination of contracts and dealings with the parties involved in the identified fabricated transactions.  The Board accepted the Special Committee’s recommendations and implemented them.

 
The investigation indicates indicates that the aggregate sales amount associated with the fabricated transactions from the second quarter of 2019 to the fourth quarter of 2019 amount to around RMB2.2 billion. Certain costs and expenses were also substantially inflated by fabricated transactions during this period. The Company is assessing the overall financial impact of the misconduct on its financial statements. 

As a result, investors should no longer rely upon the Company’s previous financial statements for the period ended September 30, 2019 and the two quarters starting April 1, 2019 and ended September 30, 2019. 

Fraudulent or misleading financial statements can cause significant harm to investors. If you are an investor in Luckin Coffee (LK) contact Sallah Astarita & Cox, LLC - 212-509-6544

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Senate Democrats call for investigation of SEC's Piwowar

Commissioner Michael Piwowar is under fire for speculation that he abused his position by trying to influence Citigroup's business dealings.

Six Democrat senators asked the SEC's inspector general Wednesday to investigate whether outgoing Commissioner Michael Piwowar might have abused his position "in an attempt to unduly influence Citigroup" over its decision to limit business with gun firms.

In the letter to Carl Hoecker, inspector general of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the senators questioned reports that, during an April 24 meeting with Citigroup Inc. officials to discuss derivatives rulemaking being considered at the SEC, Mr. Piwowar tried to get the officials to reverse their gun policy because it "conflicts with his personal and political views."Mr. Piwowar is one of three Republicans on the commission, including Chairman Jay Clayton. He is leaving July 7.
Democratic senators are questioning Piwowar's attempts to have Citigroup's officials reverse their policies regarding businesses with gun firms. The senators stand firm that individual personal and political views should not affect the SEC.

Read more here from Investment News.

Friday, May 25, 2018

DOJ Opens Criminal Investigation into Bitcoin Price Manipulation

The US Justice Department has launched an investigation into traders who are manipulating bitcoin prices.

The Bloomberg report states that the probe is focused on "spoofing" - a practice where an investor intentionally manipulates the price of an instrument. Eradicating the flood of fake orders from the market is also on the agenda.

With the fall of bitcoin prices, and the volatile nature of the cryptocurrency market, there is a call to crack down on fraudulent activity. For more information, head to this CNBC article.

---
Cryptocurrency losses? The attorneys at Sallah Astarita & Cox include experienced former SEC staff attorneys, and securities attorneys with decades of experience in securities manipulation cases. For a confidential review of your investments, call 212-509-6544 or email mja@sallahlaw.com.

‘Operation Cryptosweep’ Launched

An effort to investigate cryptocurrency investment products continues to make headlines.

The North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) is coordinating with US and Canadian regulators to weed out fake ICOs and other crypto scams, with as many as 70 investigations already underway.

The Washington Post reports that it's the largest movement of its kind, with 50% of investigations pending or completed, and more on the way. Nicknamed "Operation Cryptosweep", it has the approval of Head of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Jay Clayton, who applauds lawmakers for cracking down on fraud in the ICO markets.

Read his statement, and more information about the effort, in this Finance Magnates article.

-------------
If you are concerned about losses in cryptocurrency, give Sallah Astarita & Cox a call at 212-509-6544 or email mja@sallahlaw.com

Saturday, January 27, 2018

Investigation - Cali Muni Offerings

The SEC is investigating "certain market practices" by participants in municipal securities transactions, according to the California treasurer’s office. More.

Monday, December 11, 2017

Bitcoin Fraud On the Rise

I have been representing targets and witnesses in securities fraud investigations and litigation for decades. I have litigated the aftermath of Ponzi schemes, pump and dumps and bubbles for investors, and have represented countless witnesses and targets in SEC and FINRA investigations.

Aside from my extensive securities litigation experience - 30 years and counting and am also more computer literate than most. I have litigated dozens upon dozens of cases caused by the crash in 1987, the tech bubble in 2001, the housing crisis in 2008 and dozens of fraud cases in between, as well as Internet securities fraud cases.

However, I don't know that any of us have seen anything near this Bitcoin craze, and the losses that investors are have already suffered and may suffer in the future.

The potential for loss is not simply from the direct loss in an investment which has soared in recent weeks, but in potential fraud surrounding the technology and the hacking of platforms.

After all, the coincurrencies are computer based. Your investment is "stored" online, and only online. Lose your password, you lose your money. And if hackers hack the exchange or the currency platform, you lose your money.

This is not a hypothethical overblown risk. Just last Wednesday NiceHash, which describes itself as the largest marketplace for mining digital currencies, reported  that it was suspending its operations for at least 24 hours because of a security breach which resulted in the theft of approximately 4,700 bitcoins which were worth roughly $75 million.

Bitfinex, a Hong Kong-based bitcoin exchange, was briefly shut down last year after hackers stole nearly 120,000 bitcoins -- worth more than $65 million at the time. The year before, cyber thieves made off with about 19,000 bitcoins after breaking into European exchange Bitstamp.

Then there is the risk of securities fraud. The SEC is aware of the potential for fraud and has opened a number of investigations. The SEC has warned investors to be on the lookout for "potential scams" involving Initial Coin Offerings. ICOs function similarly to an Initial Public Offering on the stock market, but without the governmental regulation. They typically receive investments in the form of cryptocurrency in exchange for shares known as tokens. But ICOs can be for any sort of startup -- they don't necessarily have to be for cryptocurrency companies.

The SEC's newly created Cyber Unit has started to take action on "pump and dump" schemes where fraudsters lure investors, take their money, and run. Add to this the hacking of coincurrency exchanges, and the potential for the inability to cash in coincurrency for dollars, and there is the potential for significant losses.

My office has been receiving inquiries from individuals looking to start coin exchanges, and a trickling of inquiries from investors who have lost money in coincurrency transactions. We are continuing to investigate and review these cases. If you have lost money in coincurrency, or have been contacted by the SEC or the FBI regarding coincurrency or cryptocurrency transactions, give our office a call at 212-509-6544, or email me directly at mja@sallahlaw.com.

Friday, October 23, 2015

FINRA Broker Compensation Sweep Continues


FINRA periodically conducts sweeps on particular regulatory topics. In its most recent Annual Priorities Letter, FINRA claimed that conflicts of interest represent a recurring challenge that contribute to compliance and supervisory breakdowns which can lead to firms and registered representatives, at times, compromising the quality of service they provide to clients.
Logo
FINRA seems to be fixated on compensation, despite the complete lack of published statistics or facts to support its conclusion that there is in fact an issue. Regardless, our firm, and our clients must deal with the premise, and FINRA's fixation.

FINRA has announced that it intends to continue its review of this "issue" and will "continue our assessment of the efforts employed by firms to identify, mitigate and manage conflicts of interest, specifically with respect to compensation practices."

Fortunately, FINRA has published its Exam Letter, giving firms a basic heads-up and has released a list of 19 questions that it intends to ask. Naturally, FINRA is not bound by this list, and can expand it whenever it pleases.

FINRA has limited the time period to August 2014 through July 2015, we request that responses to the questions and requests below be provided in writing by no later than Friday, September 18, 2015.

The list is long, and encompasses the following questions. When producing documents to FINRA in this, or any investigation, do yourself a favor - number the pages of the documents that you produce so that YOU can identify the production later. When we produce documents to regulators, we stamp the documents "SA&C0000001" and so on. Later, if the investigation heats up, we can readily identify the document, the fact that it was produced by our client, and when it was produced. Today, stamping documents with Adobe takes seconds, not hours, and should be performed in every document production.

Enough lecturing, here is what FINRA is looking for. Keep in mind that you can modify some of this, if the request is particularly onerous for your firm. We have successfully limited and/or modified FINRA requests on countless occasions to fit our client's particular situations.:

  • Identify and describe the composition of the departments or committees that are responsible for reviewing and approving compensation policies for the firm's registered persons, including supervisory personnel, involved in retail brokerage.
  • Describe the role of the Board in reviewing and approving individuals' compensation packages as well as compensation policies as a whole.
  • What role do corporate functions – such as finance, human resources, compliance, or risk – play in the review and approval of business line remuneration policies?
  • Identify and describe the controls utilized to identify compensation-related conflicts of interest.
  • Identify the team(s) or individual(s) that are responsible for developing and implementing the identified controls.
  • Describe the initial review and approval process that occurred for the identified controls.
  • Identify and describe the controls (e.g., neutral grid, fee-capping, compensation penalties) utilized to manage compensation-related conflicts of interest.
  • Identify the team(s) or individual(s) that are responsible for developing and implementing the identified controls.
  • Describe the initial review and approval process that occurred for the identified controls.
  • Identify and describe surveillance efforts or supervisory processes that have been implemented to assess whether potential compensation-related conflicts of interest are materializing in your firm's retail brokerage business.
  • Describe specific underlying surveillance/supervision efforts that have been implemented. Include the identity of the department(s) responsible for the surveillance or supervision.
  • Describe whether surveillance/supervision efforts are performed on a routine basis and, if so, how often.
  • Describe escalation procedures in place for situations that suggest a compensation-related conflict of interest is materializing.
  • Indicate how many compensation-related conflict of interest escalations occurred during the period of August 2014 through July 2015.
  • Describe how current compensation structures balance short-term incentives for registered representatives and clients' long-term interests. Include a description of any components of compensation structures designed mitigate compensation-related conflicts of interest.
  • If changes to compensation structures were made during the period of August 2014 through July 2015, summarize each change and identify the strategic goal of each change.
  • Identify and describe the terms and conditions of each standardized enhanced and deferred compensation package your firm offers to recruit or retain registered representatives including who is authorized to provide such packages and who must approve such packages. Indicate the degree to which these compensation packages are contingent upon a registered persons' production derived from particular product types or product families. Identify the number of registered representatives currently receiving compensation from each standardized enhanced or deferred compensation package.
  • Describe the use of non-standard (i.e., negotiated) enhanced and deferred compensation packages by your firm to recruit or retain registered representatives. Indicate the degree to which these compensation packages are contingent upon a registered persons' production derived from particular product types or product families. Identify who is authorized to provide such packages and who must approve such packages. Further, identify the number of registered representatives currently receiving non-standard enhanced and deferred compensation packages.
  • Identify production thresholds that entitle any registered representative to higher compensation ‘ whether paid in the form of higher commission payout, higher base salary or higher discretionary bonus. Indicate whether these thresholds are communicated to registered representatives.
  • Describe the terms and conditions of any direct production penalties in place which, based upon events occurring, can result in a decrease in compensation paid to registered representatives.
  • Describe the approach to compensating direct and indirect managers of registered representatives involved in sales to retail accounts, including Sales Managers (or similar function), Business Supervisors and Compliance Personnel. Indicate whether compensation packages are tied to production either through direct commission payout, higher base salary or discretionary bonus. Indicate if thresholds for higher compensation are communicated to managers.
  • Describe broadly how products approved for sale are displayed or otherwise communicated to registered representatives. For example, are products presented by product category (e.g., Mutual Fund or Annuity)? Is an internal search feature available?
  • For each method used by your firm to display approved product to registered representatives, describe how the display order of products is determined and identify the group or department that makes the decision.
  • Describe any methods employed or processes in place to promote the sale of specific products or categories of products. (Example: Preferred Product List, Enhanced Commission Payouts, etc.)
  • Using the table in Attachment A identify the products offered to retail accounts and describe all types of income received for each product (e.g., commission/concession, 12b-1 fee, income from other revenue sharing arrangements, payment for shelf space, etc.) For each type of income, state whether the income is split with registered representatives on a per transaction basis pursuant to a payout schedule or other terms.
  • Describe your firm's policy for permitting third-party product or sponsor representatives to meet with registered representatives. Include details about requirements, if any, for supervisors or managers to attend.
  • Describe your firm's policy for permitting registered representatives to attend off-site, overnight educational session that are sponsored by issuers or product sponsors.
  • Identify by name the Top 10 proprietary or affiliated products as well as the Top 10 independent products sold to retail accounts during the period of August 2014 through July 2015. Total revenue to your firm for each product should be the measurement used in identifying products identified on each list.
  • Identify any flat fee or annual payments that your firm has received to make a product available for sale by its registered representatives.


---
The attorneys at Sallah Astarita & Cox are experienced securities regulatory attorneys, having served at SEC Senior Enforcement Attorneys, in-house and outside counsel to dozens of brokerage firms, including some of the country's largest firms, as well as criminal prosecutors. Our experience can guide you through the examination process, help you to avoid potential pitfalls, and hopefully structure a result that causes the least amount of pain for you and your firm. Call our office at 212-509-6544 for more information. We represent investors, brokers and firms nationwide, and our attorneys have been doing so for decades.



Thursday, September 10, 2015

Insider Trading Proves Costly for Father and Son and Friend

Trading on inside information can be profitable, might be illegal, and if it is illegal, it is costly.

The SEC has announced charges against a father, son, and friend in Northern California with insider trading in advance of a merger of health care companies based on confidential information the father learned from a close friend working at one of the companies.

The SEC alleges that John McEnery III breached a duty of trust and confidence owed to his friend when he traded and tipped others to trade in the stock of Clarient Inc. upon learning about its impending acquisition by GE Healthcare.  McEnery tipped his son John McEnery IV as well as Michael Rawitser, a longtime friend of McEnery III.

Following the public announcement of the acquisition, Clarient’s stock price rose by 33 percent and the trio profited by a total of more than $50,000.

The McEnerys and Rawitser agreed to pay approximately $170,000 combined to settle the charges, more than triple the amount of their alleged profits.

When you are accused of securities fraud, the penalties can be severe, and could include criminal charges. Make sure that you have experienced counsel - Call Sallah Astarita & Cox - 212-509-6544

SEC Charges Father and Son and Friend With Insider Trading


Thursday, August 21, 2014

Securities Fraud Cases Can Be Criminal Cases

Defending a SEC securities fraud case is not simply about the civil charges and penalties. Most securities law violations are also criminal violations, and violators can be charged both civilly and criminally.

As securities litigators, we are aware of the issue, and sometimes the cases are not brought together. When resolving an SEC case, or even a FINRA enforcement case, we are always mindful of the potential for a criminal case, or  an enforcement proceeding from a state agency.

In the usual case, if a criminal case is going to be filed, it is filed at or about the same time as the civil charges. Or, there is at least notice that a prosecutor is interested in the case. However, not always.

Case in point -  as a result of the investigation of Bernie Madoff's massive fraud, the SEC found that a former deputy dean of MIT's business school and his son were running a Ponzi scheme of their own. The father-son team settled fraud charges with the SEC in 2012 for $4.8 million and a permanent bar.

Last week, over two years later,  federal prosecutors announced that the duo are going to plead guilty to criminal charges. According to CNN they face between two and five years in prison. They could also be forced to pay as much as $290 million in fines plus payments to victims.

According to the government the duo falsely told clients that their hedge fund was delivering annual returns between 16% and 23%, enticing investors to entrust more than $500 million with them. They also falsely claimed that the money would be invested using a complex trading model based on research they conducted at MIT. In fact, they placed investor money with Bernie Madoff and the Petters Group Worldwide, both of which were later found to be Ponzi schemes.

Nearly $5 million in fines with the SEC, and then, two years later, up to 5 years in jail plus $290,000,000 in fines, PLUS repayment to victims.

Most of these schemes do not start out at schemes - they become schemes when the manager, trader, owner suffers a loss and thinks he can trade it way out of it. Regardless of how the scheme evolves, or what the oringinal good motives were, securities fraud cases carry significant civil and criminal consequences, and  require representation by securities law attorneys, with the knowledge and skill that only decades of experience can provide.

One side note - I continue to be amazed at what defendants say in emails.  Sending emails can sometimes be worse than a phone tap. In this case, the government alleges that emails between the defendants included these two gems:

We have mislead [sic] a lot of people with a range of statements that were incorrect simply to increase our income. . .
We are certainly sharing equally in this dad … Lots of our problems were caused by my good intentions but very poor actions when it came to true honesty.


 If you have an issue, if you need to respond to a subpoena or "voluntary" request from the SEC, call us.

And don't send emails to your co-workers or friends discussing the case.

Related Articles:

Ex-MIT dean and son plead guilty to hedge fund scam - Aug. 12, 2014

SEC Charges Father-and-Son Hedge Fund Managers April 20, 2012


---
If you are the victim of a Ponzi scheme or the subject of an SEC investigation, call our office. Our attorneys include veteran securities litigators and former SEC Enforcement Attorneys. We have decades of experience in securities litigation matters, We represent investors, financial professionals, and investment firms. For more information contact Mark Astarita at 212-509-6544 or email us.

Monday, January 6, 2014

Tips for Responding to an SEC Subpoena

Being forced to participate in an SEC investigation, even as a witness, can be a harrowing experience, and this is true whether you are a market professional, the CEO of a regulated entity, or an investor. That investigation can have a serious effect on your business, or your career and has the risk of consuming a significant amount of time, and money, even if you have not engaged in any wrongful conduct. How you respond to the initial inquiry, and how you manage the events as the investigation continues often determines the outcome of that investigation.

SEC investigations can begin from a variety of sources, including anonymous tips, trading surveillance by the SEC, or the exchanges, customer complaints, or from information obtained by other government entities. Witnesses and even targets, often learn of the investigation by a simple telephone call from an investigator or staff attorney. That telephone call will be followed by a letter, which requests that you voluntarily provide information to the SEC Staff.

The first important step - do not have a discussion with the Staff, and should you ignore this step - do not give the Staff false information. Lying to the SEC can be the basis for a felony charge, and the last thing you want to do is to turn a defensible investigation into an indefensible criminal charge of obstruction. We have seen it happen in our own practice, and the world saw it happen - Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to SEC investigators. She did not go to jail for insider trading, and she had a viable defense to that charge.

From this point forward, you need to be involved, and to be proactive, and you need an experienced securities attorney. At this stage, the SEC undoubtedly does not have subpoena power, but that power is easily obtained. You must make a decision whether to voluntarily cooperate, and you should make that decision with an experienced securities attorney. Not only is a securities attorney knowledgeable about the law and the procedure involving investigations, the securities defense bar is small, and your attorney will have access to information and resources that you do not.

In addition, if there is any chance that you will become the subject of an investigation, or that any information you have may be damaging, you need to put an attorney between you, your employees and your company, and the SEC.

Your attorney will contact the Staff and attempt to determine what the nature and scope of the investigation. Unfortunately the Staff is not always forthcoming with that information, and you will have to prepare a response without knowing the scope of the investigation. Providing information on a voluntary basis is typically the better response, but not always, and you should keep in mind that some investigators can become quite vindictive if you do not voluntarily cooperate. Unfortunate, but true.

Together with your attorney you can manage that voluntary request to minimize the impact on your business. The SEC is notorious for asking for reams of documents, using demands that include "all documents relating to" an issue, and which can consume dozens of hours of time to identify, review and produce responsive documents. At this stage, you and your attorney can discuss the requests with the staff, seek clarification and modification of the requests to make that request manageable.

At this stage, you will also need to insure that documents, emails and notes, including electronic notes, are maintained and not destroyed. Employees need to be advised to preserve documents - no shredding, and no reformatting of hard drives. Again, being accused of destroying evidence after learning of an investigation can be worse than the outcome of the original investigation.

While the seriousness of the event is enough to cause concern, a large part of any subpoenaed broker's concern is the fear of the unknown, including the procedure, what will be discussed and the target of the investigation.

Monday, April 15, 2013

UBS Willow Fund Investors Filing Arbitrations


UBS WILLOW FUND

A CLASSIC CASE OF RISKY DERIVATIVE BETS GONE BAD
In October 2012 investors were informed that the Willow Fund would be liquidated, after having sustained substantial losses. In a recent New York Times article on the UBS Willow Fund, it was reported that the fund had suffered losses of approximately 80% in the first three quarters of 2012 after its manager made a radical change in investment strategy and “piled into some colossally bad derivative trades.” “The investors, some of whom hadn’t realized they were holding a portfolio filled with risky bets against the debt of European nations, were stunned,” says the article.
The Willow Fund’s exposure to credit default swaps began to significantly increase, and by the end of 2008 while corporate bonds amounted to only 6% of the portfolio, the value of credit default swaps rocketed to 25% of the portfolio, from only 2.6% in 2007. By 2009, credit default swaps amounted to 43% of the Willow Fund’s portfolio composition, the article claims. In 2012, the Willow Fund posted an 89% decline and, as the fund was being wound down, UBS reported that approximately 70% of its losses derived from exposure to credit default swaps – a stunning fact.
It has been reported that UBS Willow Fund investors are expected to receive pennies on the dollar after liquidation of the fund.
Various press reports have stated that the Willow Fund’s radical change in investment strategy through its increasing exposure to credit default swaps, and commensurate decrease in exposure to corporate bonds, transformed the fund into a highly speculative and aggressive gamble on, in essence, the debt of European nations. Did Willow Fund investors really understand what they were invested in and the magnitude of risk to which they were exposed and, if they did, would they have agreed to invest or remain invested?
Investors seeking to file arbitrations will allege that securities brokerage firms, like UBS, have a legal obligation to ensure that when offering and selling an investment, like the Willow Fund, it makes full, complete and accurate disclosures of all material facts to its customer, and ensures that the recommendation to purchase is suitable. The failure to do so is a violation of securities laws and securities industry rules and may give rise to liability for losses sustained.
Securities arbitration attorneys are presently reviewing cases for investors against UBS for their purchases of the Willow Fund. UBS customers who purchased the Willow Fund can contact our office  to explore whether they can recover their Willow Fund losses. All calls handled on a confidential, no obligation basis. Cases taken on a contingency fee basis, meaning no attorney’s fee owed to the law firms if no recovery. Call 212-509-6544 for additional information regarding Willow Fund arbitrations, or email us at info@beamlaw.com

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, May 21, 2012

Beam & Astarita Reviewing Claims For Facebook Trading Disaster

Image representing Facebook as depicted in Cru...
The world's largest IPO has turned into an unmitigated disaster for NASDAQ, which was unable to handle the volume of trading on Friday, the first day of trading in Facebook shares. According to press reports, NASDAQ has admitted that it bungled Facebook's offering, and acknowledge that technology problems affected trading in millions of shares.
Thus far it is estimated that the losses will be in the tens of millions of dollars for brokerage firms, traders and investors. Beam & Astarita is reviewing potential claims by brokerage firms and investors for losses that were occasioned on Friday and again today.
Thus far it appears that brokers and traders who entered orders on behalf of institutions and retail investors did not receive confirmation of executions until hours after the fact, and even then, the reports were not correct. That forced brokers to go back to their customers, who thought their trades were executed earier in the day, and to attempt to fix the trade discrepencies for those customers.
The issue clearly goes back to NASDAQ but brokers will have to deal with the issue with their customers, and customers are getting ready to file claims against their firms, and NASDAQ for their losses.
That put the onus on brokers to determine whether or not to make customers good on trades they thought had been completed hours earlier. Wholesale market makers, the major electronic order-handling operations that handle the trading of individual investors, were seen among the worst-hit by Nasdaq's glitches due to the large number of orders that needed to be fixed for customers eager to trade in Facebook's debut.
 Nasdaq OMX officials claim that clients would have to seek "accommodation" through the exchange's rules for handling disputed transactions, but a more direct route, through arbitration or traditional lawsuits, may be the ultimate dispute resolution.
If you have been damaged by the trading in Facebook IPO shares, give us a call at 212-509-6544 or 973-559-5566, or email our team at facebookipo@beamlaw.com.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, March 29, 2012

TVIX Down 75%, Investigations and arbitrations to follow

Last week, the VelocityShares Daily 2x VIX Short-Term exchange-traded note, which trades under the symbol TVIX, shed half its market value between Thursday and Friday, a decline which created significant losses for investors, and undererscored the complexities of easy-to-trade yet complex securities.
TVIX is an exchanged traded note, not an exchange traded fund, which is one issue. It is tied to volatility of the underlying index, which may or may not be an issue, and it moves twice as fast as the volitality of that index. It is purportedly designed to hedge against stock portfolio declines, and is designed to double the daily returns on the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index, or VIX, and to rise when stocks fall.
However, the TVIX is down 75% this year, significantly more than one would expect from the product as structured and presented to investors.
A securities that doubles the potential profit or loss based on the volality of a commodity, backed only by the creditworthiness of a brokerage firm. And you thought Lehman Principal Protection Notes were complex?
Obviously there is nothing wrong with these securities in the abstract. But complex products need to be carefully examined and measures taken to insure that investors understand what they are buying, and something went seriously wrong here. For more information regarding TVIX, call Beam & Astarita at 212-509-6544.