Ms. Jennifer Piorko Mitchell Office of the CorporateSecretary FINRA
1735 K Street
Washington, DC 20006
Re: Request for Comment on Regulatory Notice25-05
Dear Ms. Mitchell,
Asan owner of a Registered Investment Advisory (RIA) firm having registered representatives at a member firm that is independent and not affiliated in any manner with my RIA firm, I strongly object to the newly proposed Rule 3290 in Regulatory Notice 25-05.
This proposed Rule would subject certain independent RIA/IAs to an additional layer of corporate and regulatory oversight that doesn’t exist for other RIA/IAs that do not have FINRA licensure. Further, the proposedRule claims jurisdiction over real estate,banking and insurance businesses, where FINRA has no right to regulate under its Charter or are otherwise subject to regulation by other Federal and/or State(s) agencies.
I have read the Comment Letter submitted by Mr. Purcell of PKS Investments, and I fully agree with his stated arguments againstpromulgating the proposedRule 3290. It will be impossible to comply with client privacy mandates, and his citation of voluminous conflicting rules and guidance presages greater regulatory confusion and turmoil should Rule 3290 be adopted.
Registered Investment Advisory firms already are regulated by the SEC and the States and are not subjectto FINRA jurisdiction. We are fiduciaries and subject to those standards. Imposition of FINRA Rules, that are in no way related to our business, on only those RIA firms that have person(s) also registered with a FINRA member creates an uneven regulatory environment and
serves no purpose other than an unwarranted expansionof FINRA’s jurisdiction.
I strongly believe that the proposed Rule 3290 as currently written, together with the guidance and analysis providedwithin Regulatory Notice25-05, should not be adopted.I respectfully ask thatFINRA reconsider the proposed Rule as originally drafted and discussed in Regulatory Notice 18-08. Thank you for your consideration.
For the Public
FINRA DATA
FINRA Data provides non-commercial use of data, specifically the ability to save data views and create and manage a Bond Watchlist.
For Industry Professionals
FINPRO
Registered representatives can fulfill Continuing Education requirements, view their industry CRD record and perform other compliance tasks.
For Member Firms
FINRA GATEWAY
Firm compliance professionals can access filings and requests, run reports and submit support tickets.
For Case Participants
DR PORTAL
Arbitration and mediation case participants and FINRA neutrals can view case information and submit documents through this Dispute Resolution Portal.
Need Help? | Check System Status
Log In to other FINRA systems
Mark Finelli Comment On Regulatory Notice 25-05
Ms. Jennifer Piorko Mitchell Office of the CorporateSecretary FINRA
1735 K Street
Washington, DC 20006
Re: Request for Comment on Regulatory Notice25-05
Dear Ms. Mitchell,
Asan owner of a Registered Investment Advisory (RIA) firm having registered representatives at a member firm that is independent and not affiliated in any manner with my RIA firm, I strongly object to the newly proposed Rule 3290 in Regulatory Notice 25-05.
This proposed Rule would subject certain independent RIA/IAs to an additional layer of corporate and regulatory oversight that doesn’t exist for other RIA/IAs that do not have FINRA licensure. Further, the proposedRule claims jurisdiction over real estate,banking and insurance businesses, where FINRA has no right to regulate under its Charter or are otherwise subject to regulation by other Federal and/or State(s) agencies.
I have read the Comment Letter submitted by Mr. Purcell of PKS Investments, and I fully agree with his stated arguments againstpromulgating the proposedRule 3290. It will be impossible to comply with client privacy mandates, and his citation of voluminous conflicting rules and guidance presages greater regulatory confusion and turmoil should Rule 3290 be adopted.
Registered Investment Advisory firms already are regulated by the SEC and the States and are not subjectto FINRA jurisdiction. We are fiduciaries and subject to those standards. Imposition of FINRA Rules, that are in no way related to our business, on only those RIA firms that have person(s) also registered with a FINRA member creates an uneven regulatory environment and
serves no purpose other than an unwarranted expansionof FINRA’s jurisdiction.
I strongly believe that the proposed Rule 3290 as currently written, together with the guidance and analysis providedwithin Regulatory Notice25-05, should not be adopted.I respectfully ask thatFINRA reconsider the proposed Rule as originally drafted and discussed in Regulatory Notice 18-08. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mark Finelli