As an 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 does not exist for other RIA/IAs without FINRA licensure, creating an uneven regulatory environment. Furthermore, it improperly claims jurisdiction over real estate, banking, and insurance businesses, which fall outside FINRA’s charter and are already regulated by other federal and state agencies. This expansion of FINRA’s authority appears to favor large institutions like Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and UBS, which may seek to disadvantage independent broker-dealers, potentially harming competition and client choice. I urge FINRA to prioritize what is right for clients over the interests of these large firms.
I have read the Comment Letter submitted by Mr. Purcell of PKS Investments and fully agree with his arguments against promulgating Rule 3290. Compliance with client privacy mandates would be nearly impossible, and the conflicting rules and guidance cited by Mr. Purcell foreshadow significant regulatory confusion and turmoil if the Rule is adopted.
Registered Investment Advisory firms are already regulated by the SEC and the states as fiduciaries and are not subject to FINRA jurisdiction. Imposing FINRA rules, which are unrelated to our business, solely on RIA firms with persons registered with a FINRA member serves no justifiable purpose and represents an unwarranted expansion of FINRA’s authority.
I strongly believe that the proposed Rule 3290, as currently written, together with the guidance and analysis provided in Regulatory Notice 25-05, should not be adopted. I respectfully ask that FINRA 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 Thatcher Comment On Regulatory Notice 25-05
Dear Ms. Mitchell,
As an 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 does not exist for other RIA/IAs without FINRA licensure, creating an uneven regulatory environment. Furthermore, it improperly claims jurisdiction over real estate, banking, and insurance businesses, which fall outside FINRA’s charter and are already regulated by other federal and state agencies. This expansion of FINRA’s authority appears to favor large institutions like Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and UBS, which may seek to disadvantage independent broker-dealers, potentially harming competition and client choice. I urge FINRA to prioritize what is right for clients over the interests of these large firms.
I have read the Comment Letter submitted by Mr. Purcell of PKS Investments and fully agree with his arguments against promulgating Rule 3290. Compliance with client privacy mandates would be nearly impossible, and the conflicting rules and guidance cited by Mr. Purcell foreshadow significant regulatory confusion and turmoil if the Rule is adopted.
Registered Investment Advisory firms are already regulated by the SEC and the states as fiduciaries and are not subject to FINRA jurisdiction. Imposing FINRA rules, which are unrelated to our business, solely on RIA firms with persons registered with a FINRA member serves no justifiable purpose and represents an unwarranted expansion of FINRA’s authority.
I strongly believe that the proposed Rule 3290, as currently written, together with the guidance and analysis provided in Regulatory Notice 25-05, should not be adopted. I respectfully ask that FINRA reconsider the proposed Rule as originally drafted and discussed in Regulatory Notice 18-08. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Mark Thatcher