SEC Investigates Whether Smaller Investors Are Penalized in Pricing

Posted on April 1st, 2014 at 9:35 AM

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law Offices:

Smaller investors often receive different prices for the same securities on electronic bond-trading platforms. Likewise, brokers sometimes block their rivals and clients from seeing some of their prices for municipal, corporate and other bonds. The SEC wants to understand why.

The inquiry highlights an infrastructure problem with the U.S. bond market. That is, while the bond market has expanded at a 23 percent rate in the past six years, much of the trading still is conducted through telephone conversations and e-mails.

The attorneys of Eccleston Law Offices represent investors and advisers nationwide in securities and employment matters. Our attorneys draw on a combined experience of nearly 50 years in delivering the highest quality legal services.

Related Attorneys: James J. Eccleston

Tags:

Return to Archive

TESTIMONIALS

Previous
Next

 


It was really fun seeing you fight for us. You have an amazing way of thinking out of the box.


 

Beth M.

LATEST NEWS AND ARTICLES

October 11, 2024
Macquarie Investment Management to Pay $79.8 Million for Overvalued CMOs and Unlawful Cross Trades

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has charged Macquarie Investment Management Business Trust (MIMBT) with overvaluing collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and executing unlawful cross-trades that favored certain clients. 

October 10, 2024
Merrill Lynch and Harvest Volatility Management Fined $9.3 Million for Exceeding Client Investment Limits

According to SEC.gov, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has charged Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., and Harvest Volatility Management LLC for exceeding clients’ designated investment limits, resulting in higher fees, increased market exposure, and financial losses. 

October 9, 2024
Charles Schwab Faces Lawsuit Over Failure to Prevent Elder Fraud in Computer Hack

A new lawsuit claims that Charles Schwab failed to protect an elderly client from a fraudulent scheme that drained her retirement savings.