Re: Comment on FINRA Regulatory Notice 25-05 – Proposed Rule 3290 Submitted by: Desiree Moreno Pineyro Date:05/05/2025To: Jennifer Piorko Mitchell Office of the Corporate Secretary Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) 1700 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006Dear Ms. Mitchell,As a fully licensed financial professional and manager with Series 7, 66, 9, 10, and 31 registrations, I am
I just don't see the benefit of this rule change requirement. Especially after the fact. If it were a requirement originally OK, but not afterwards. Maybe make it a requirement for new RIA's or post date it to a future date requirement. If FINRA interferes with Crypto investments at this stage it will just hurt all investors. FA's wiil just go to the alternative route, therefore
Absolutely the worst rule proposal I could imagine hearing. Please vote no on this.This rule would certainly cause a major disruption to advisor's and their clients, especially,to smaller clients who may not qualify for RIA status.
I completely and totally oppose such a useless and tyrannical rule. It's gross overreach and does not benefit the people of this country its industries or our institutions. I'm ok with FAs having crypto without your knowledge. Again this rule proposal is overreach
I oppose Rule 3290. It is serious over reach into both the professional and personal lives of Financial Advisors. As I read elsewhere, this is akin to not allowing Real Estate Agents and there families from owning a home. Do not pass this rule!
FINRA should change FINRA Rules 12402 and 12403 so that all Claimants and all Respondents have to share the same number of strikes when ranking arbitrators. Under the current rule so long as a brokerage firm and the financial advisor are represented by different law firms then they would get twice as many strikes as a group of investors who are represented by the same law firm. In
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Regulatory Notice 25-05. While I support efforts to streamline oversight, I oppose the proposed consolidation of Rules 3270 and 3280 in their current form.The definition of "investment-related activities" is overly broad and risks encompassing low-risk or personal activities that do not warrant regulatory scrutiny. This may overwhelm firms
As the owner of a Registered Investment Advisory (RIA) firm and a registered representative of an affiliated FINRA member firm, I respectfully oppose proposed Rule 3290 in Regulatory Notice 25-05.The rule would inappropriately extend FINRA’s oversight to RIAs who are already regulated by the SEC and state authorities. It would also create a two-tier system—imposing additional compliance burdens
A vibrant and efficient capital-raising process fosters business expansion, job creation, innovation and economic growth. FINRA members play a critical role in facilitating capital formation for businesses of all sizes. FINRA supports the capital-raising process through appropriately tailored rules for its members that are designed for the benefit of all market participants.
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) is, consistent with SEA Rule 10c-1a, filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) a proposed rule change to adopt new FINRA Rule 7720 (Securities Lending and Transparency Engine (SLATE™)) to establish securities loan reporting fees and securities loan data products with associated fees in connection with FINRA’s
