Bringing together two organizations with rich histories and deep values takes commitment, care, and creativity. Turning them into one bank will prove to be an unparalleled opportunity for transformation. To build our new brand for success, we started by talking to the people closest to it. Associates, teammates, prospects, and clients all shared inputs and insights to shape who we are and where we're going, ensuring that we're creating the bank people want.Now, we're thrilled to announce our new name: Truist. Truist is the first signal of our bold future together. It reflects a shared belief in building a better future for our clients and communities. Throughout our process, one thing has always been clear: we are creating a bank that will be built around you and what you want in a financial institution. We want to do more than just understand your financial goals; we believe in helping you on the road to achieving them. Making that belief real involves innovating and building new technology, helping you grow your own financial confidence, and taking action to help you pursue the goals that drive you forward. And that's why we're taking a stand to always look forward, pursue what's next, and do more for you.The transaction between BB&T and SunTrust to form Truist is subject to regulatory approvals. BB&T and SunTrust remain separate and independent companies until the transaction closes.
Bill Singer's Comment: Respectfully, financial education as presently taught is an abject failure, a waste of time and resources, and unable to demonstrate any positive results. It's not simply an issue of "pivot, adjust and step up." The larger issue is the persistence of failure in our educational system, and how "best intentions" is always dredged up as an excuse. The road to Hell is paved with best intentions. Frankly, I find it somewhat offensive that Hensley thinks that it's best to "stop the argument that financial education doesn't work." Nothing like squelching criticism to ensure an energetic collaboration aimed at finding solutions! Hensley argues that:Through 20 years in education, I've never seen teachers stop teaching because every learner wasn't proficient upon assessment. If students don't meet standards in math or reading, should we just give up? No. We pivot, adjust and step up our efforts.I've been a part of the financial education community for a decade. As in any industry, there are turf wars but, mostly, there's energetic collaboration among organizations, educators and individuals with best intentions of guiding individuals toward financial capability.
Hensley is absolutely correct: the history of financial education is largely a "collective failure." It is a failure of unions who negate meaningful efforts to implement accountability among teachers. It is a failure of politicians who inject partisanship and cronyism into the school system. It is the failure of parents who tolerate sub-standard education for their tax dollars. Unfortunately, Hensley blames the loss of "positive momentum" for financial education on those who criticize financial education. That's bassackwards. Hensley has cause-and-effect reversed. The failure of financial education is not caused by criticism of the curriculum. The failure causes the criticism. Instead of telling critics to shut up, it would be more constructive to listen to their criticisms and adapt and adopt as needed.Critics of financial education frequently characterize all efforts as a collective failure. This negates positive momentum, invalidates states that now require students take a course as a graduation requirement and discourages teachers who are passionate about personal finance.
Craig has been an investment banker employed in the Equity Capital Markets area at J.P. Morgan since 2001. At the time of the events at issue, the customer, a "sophisticated investor" as that term is used and defined under federal securities law, was the majority shareholder, CEO, chair and president of a NYSE listed company providing technology-based insurance and employer solutions. In the fall of 2015, the customer engaged J.P. Morgan to act as his agent in connection with a private equity placement of Patriot commonly known as a PIPES, or Private Investment in Public Equity, transaction.The transaction was successfully closed in December 2015 with two hedge fund purchasers, and the customer personally received a sizeable portion of Patriot stock sold in the PIPE transaction. Upon the public announcement of the purchase and sale, the customer complimented Craig for "a job well done." Almost a year and a half following the closing, after the customer failed to pay to J.P. Morgan the placement fee due under the placement agreement, the latter filed suit against J.P. Morgan and commenced litigation against Craig and J.P. Morgan in a Florida state court (subsequently removed to the U.S. Southern District of Florida) in which he alleged, inter alia, certain misrepresentations made by Craig and J.P. Morgan, i.e., that the placement would be shown to then current Patriot institutional investors (the so-called "bait and switch" claim); that the placement was to be a longterm investment; and that there would be no downside market risk to the price of Patriot stock if the transaction were consummated.Each of these allegations is clearly erroneous, false or both.First, the placement agreement had no such limitation on who could invest, and neither Craig nor the representative of J.P. Morgan made any such representation. The ultimate purchases were identified very early in the transaction, and the customer or his counsel could have objected at that time.Second, Craig made no representation that the PIPE investors were to be "long term." The only stipulation in the heavily negotiated PIPE purchase agreement was that the hedge funds were to maintain a net long position in the stock.Finally, neither Craig nor J.P. Morgan ever represented to the customer (who was being independently advised and represented by very experienced and sophisticated counsel) that the PIPE transaction posed no significant downside risk to the stock price. In any event, Craig further testified that, in his experience, such was not normally the case, nor did he have any reason to believe that the Patriot transaction would be any different.When it became apparent that the customer was judgment proof, J.P. Morgan discontinued its New York litigation, and subsequently the customer withdrew the Florida litigation with prejudice. Both actions were terminated without payment of any kind by Craig or J.P. Morgan, and there were no conditions imposed on the customer to consent to expungement. Craig testified that he has made no prior application to expunge this occurrence, which is the only mark on his CRD. He further testified as to the adverse impact this disclosure has on his business.The interests of the investing public being in no way negatively implicated, and by reason of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the claims or allegations made by the customers are clearly erroneous, false or both, and warrant expungement pursuant to Rule 2080.
Nearly half a million Alabama cell phone numbers received identical text messages in 2015 telling them to click a link to "verify" their bank account information. The link took recipients to a realistic-looking bank website where they typed in their personal financial information.But the link was not the actual bank's website-it was part of a phishing scam. Just like phishing messages sent over email, the text message-based scam was easy to fall for. The web address was only one character off from the bank's actual web address.
[M]athys received material non-public information about Sanofi's impending acquisition of Bioverativ from a Sanofi insider's son. According to the amended complaint, Mathys used the information to purchase approximately $169,000 of out-of-the-money Bioverativ call options in the 10 days immediately leading up to the public announcement. The SEC alleges that Mathys' purchases made up a significant portion of all reported options trades in the series of Bioverativ options he traded, including almost 100 percent of the market in several instances. By allegedly purchasing these options based on material non-public information, Mathys was able to turn his approximately $169,000 investment into profits of approximately $5 million. All or substantially all of these funds have been frozen in the United States or Switzerland.
through the sale of common stock, and Kandalepas himself held more than three million shares. Kandalepas admitted in a plea agreement that from December 2012 to June 2015, he bought and sold Wellness Center shares for the purpose of artificially inflating the stock price.Many of his trades occurred at or near the close of normal trading hours in a form of market manipulation known as "marking the close." According to an example cited in the plea agreement, Kandalepas, using a brokerage account in the name of an acquaintance, executed a trade to buy 300 Wellness Center shares within the last five seconds of the trading day on May 4, 2015. The trade artificially raised Wellness Center's share price by 4%, from $0.27 to $0.28, causing a profit for Kandalepas of approximately $30,000.In all, Kandalepas netted at least $136,176 in trading profits for his personal use.
Even informed by the positive history of ETFs, nobody would argue that ETFs will always function without incident. As we try to assess the probability that something will go wrong, we ought also to ask what the likelihood is that if something does go wrong, it will have a meaningful negative effect on the broader financial system. It is important for us to consider the channels through which any ETF problems would roil the financial markets or affect the rest of the economy. For a risk to implicate financial stability concerns, the bar is quite high. During today's data-filled discussion, I hope that you will encourage one another to be as precise as possible about the exact mechanism by which problems in ETFs could spill over and disrupt the larger financial system or the real economy and how plausible such a scenario is. It is easy to get caught up in the fact that market mechanisms do not work perfectly all of the time, but we need to bear in mind that government interventions to address these imperfections also do not work perfectly all of the time