Daniel Hushek, Supervisor of Richard Martin, both formerly with G.F. Investment Services, Suspended from Securities Industry for Fifteen Months
Have you lost money with financial advisor Richard W.L. Martin from Miami, Florida? We are investigating allegations made by FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, against Richard Martin. FINRA alleged that Martin used unsuitable trading of non-traditional ETFs (exchange traded funds), which comprise of inverse or leveraged ETFs. He was also alleged to have made misleading representations in connection with those sales.
According to FINRA’s complaint, Richard Martin was alleged to have recommended to his customers to hold leveraged and inverse ETFs for longer than one trading period (or one day), even though they are not meant to be held for longer than one trading period. Martin recommended that his clients invest in numerous inverse ETFs on at least 334 occasions, including in ProShares UltraPro Short QQQ, ProShares UltraPro Short Russell2000, Direxion Daily Gold Miners Bear 2X, and Direxion Daily Large Cap Bear 3X. FINRA alleged that he failed to adequately understand how these ETFs worked, and that he made unsuitable investment recommendations.
In April 2017, FINRA barred Martin from the securities industry for this conduct. FINRA further alleged that Richard Martin tried to get one of his customers to provide inaccurate information during FINRA’s investigation.
In July 2017, FINRA also alleged that Daniel Hushek, Richard Martin’s supervisor, failed to adequately supervise Martin’s conduct. FINRA alleged that Daniel Hushek failed to investigate red flags related to Martin’s trading of inverse and leveraged ETFs. To settle these allegations, Daniel Hushek agreed to pay a fine of $10,000 and agreed to a fifteen-month suspension in a principal capacity.
Richard W. Martin was a financial advisor and registered representative of G.F. Investment Services from July 2009 to July 2015. He worked in branch offices in Miami, Florida, as well as Penang, Malaysia.
Daniel Hushek was a financial advisor and registered representative of G.F. Investment Services from 2005 to January 2017. He worked in a branch office in Sarasota, Florida.
Inverse ETFs and Leveraged ETFs
ETFs (or Exchange Traded Funds) have become increasingly popular over the last 15 years. ETFs are typically used to track and replicate the performance of an index, such as the S&P 500, the Russell 2000, or the Dow Jones. ETFs are popular, because investors can invest in a basket of securities that provides diversification but with the simplicity of being a single stock.
In recent years, many companies have also created leveraged or inverse ETFs. Leveraged ETFs try to replicate the performance of a particular index, but attempt to replicate the performance by doubling or even tripling the index. As an example, the Proshares Ultra Russell 2000 ETF seeks to double the performance of the Russell 2000 Index.
Inverse ETFs also try to replicate the opposite (or even multiple opposites) of a particular index. For example, Ultrashort QQQ Shares seeks a return of two times the inverse (-2x) of the daily performance of the NASDAQ-100 Index. Leveraged and inverse ETFs can be useful investment tools for investors seeking intra-day trading.
However, inverse and leveraged ETFs are often misused, by retail investors and even financial advisors. The regulators and others have long-warned the securities industry about the dangers of inverse and leveraged ETFs. These are designed to be day-trading vehicles, but often financial advisors recommend holding these ETFs in an investor’s accounts for weeks or even months.
FINRA has stated that “inverse and leveraged ETFs that are reset daily typically are unsuitable for retail investors who plan to hold them for longer than one trading session, particularly in volatile markets.” See FINRA Regulatory Notice 09-31 at page 1. This Notice reminds members who sell these products to “make every effort to familiarize themselves with each customer’s financial situation, trading experience, and ability to meet the risks involved with such products and to make every effort to make customers aware of the pertinent information regarding the products.” Id. at 3, citing to NASD Notice To Members 05-26.
FINRA has punished other brokers and firms for using leveraged and inverse ETFs improperly. In an action against Michael Venable, FINRA barred a broker from the industry for using unsuitable leveraged and inverse ETFs with his clients. See In re Michael Douglas Venable. FINRA also fined Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, UBS, and Wells Fargo a combined $9.1 million for sales of inverse and leveraged ETFs, in May 2012.
Israels & Neuman PLC is a securities and investment fraud law firm with offices in Denver, Colorado and the Seattle area. We represent investors in FINRA arbitration proceedings in all 50 states, including investors in Florida. Our attorneys have represented over one thousand investors against many brokerage firms in the past, including LPL Financial, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Smith Barney, Stifel Nicolaus & Company, UBS Financial Services, Oppenheimer, Charles Schwab, GMS Group LLC, Ameriprise Financial Services, Raymond James Financial Services, ProEquities, Securities America, National Securities Corp., and many others.
Click to view: Hushek, Daniel FINRA AWC
Click to view: Hushek, Daniel BrokerCheck 7.16.17
Click to view: Martin, Richard FINRA Order
Click to view: Martin BrokerCheck 6.28.16
If your advisor recommended investments in leveraged or inverse ETFs that caused you losses, either through Richard Martin, G.F. Investment Services, or another firm, please CONTACT US at 720-599-3505 for a free evaluation of your case.
Israels & Neuman, PLC is a private law firm and is not affiliated with any government or law enforcement agency. Any investigation referenced in this blog is independent in nature and is being conducted by our law firm privately, not in conjunction with any government or law enforcement agency. All information contained in this blog should be deemed statements of opinion derived from the author’s review of public records, not statements of fact. This blog is advertising material and does not create an attorney client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice. Everyone’s situation is different and the question of whether or not you have a claim will vary on a case-by-case basis. In contingent representation, clients may still be liable for costs.