Enforcement Actions
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)
OUTSIDE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
2009
NOTE: Stipulations of Fact and Consent to Penalty (SFC); Offers of Settlement (OS); and Letters of Acceptance Waiver, and Consent (AWC) are entered into by Respondents without admitting or denying the allegations, but consent is given to the described sanctions & to the entry of findings. Additionally, for AWCs, if FINRA has reason to believe a violation has occurred and the member or associated person does not dispute the violation, FINRA may prepare and request that the member or associated person execute a letter accepting a finding of violation, consenting to the imposition of sanctions, and agreeing to waive such member's or associated person's right to a hearing before a hearing panel, and any right of appeal to the National Adjudicatory Council, the SEC, and the courts, or to otherwise challenge the validity of the letter, if the letter is accepted. The letter shall describe the act or practice engaged in or omitted, the rule, regulation, or statutory provision violated, and the sanction or sanctions to be imposed.
Paul Anthony Verostko
AWC/2008012540801
Verostko sold fixed annuities to customers without prompt written notice to his member firmof his outside business activities. Verostko could have sold the fixed annuities through his member firm; however, by conducting the transactions away from the firm, he received $100,000 more in commissions than he would have if the annuities had been sold through the firm. Verostko falsely certified to the firm that he was not engaged in any outside business activities.
Paul Anthony Verostko: Fined $10,000; Suspended 18 months
Bill Singer's Comment
This case underscores many issues that raise troubling questions about the theoretical underpinning of the entire stockbroker commission system. First off, how is it...seriously...how is it that there could be a swing of as much as $100,000 on the sale of the same underlying product?  Doesn't that suggest that there are incredible pressures on RRs to push certain product whether suitable or not---house product or otherwise?  

Assuming that an RR's firm and another member firm are in a position to offer the same product and the sale of said product passes the suitability test, then why shouldn't a salesperson be permitted to offer that product through whichever firms is prepared to pay the highest commission?  Truly, I understand and know the legitimate objection but I raise this question somewhat rhetorically.  This temptation should not exist.  It is unhealthy for the industry, for the selling broker, and for the customer.

Enforcement Actions
Search in Outside Business Activities
Months
 
Outside Business Activities Archive
Tags