Amazing, isn't it, that all of a sudden we see this flurry of FINRA cases involving investment advisors. I am sure that it has absolutely nothing to do with FINRA's reported designs on becoming a self-regulatory organization in this space. Of course not. Never crossed anyone's mind.
Separately, this is yet another example of the "politics of regulation" that drives me up the wall -- and over it, down the other side, and, yeah, you guessed it, back up and over again.
Sauer had a deal -- a compensation agreement -- with his firm. He was supposed to get paid X and the firm Y. Sauer kept X and Y without any apparent legal reason. For his efforts to screw his member firm, he gets barred.
Fine. Got it. No problem.
Just explain this to me. How is it that when the equation is reversed and a FINRA member firm fails to honor its compensation agreement with an individual RR that I never, ever see a FINRA regulatory action that slams the member firm -- much less expels it from membership?