Again, the SEC always has the right to take the regulatory role back to itself.

That is not something the street would want to happen.  It was the heavy handed SEC era in the mid 1930s that caused Wall Street executives at the time to seek relief through the creation of the NASD.

What is happening now is players of questionable repute are whining that the NASD is being heavy handed with them--poor poor babies, the problem is not their business plan it's the fact that the NASD is out there to catch them.

They are not unlike the Christian right in their approach to politics.  The Christian right decided that if they were to be heard they needed to move into the system so they ran for school boards, then city councils and county commissions, finally they started running for Congress, primarily the House.

In 2000 they elected one of their own as the President of the United States.

The lesson is that starting at the grass roots works, so the NASD member firms of questionable repute are going about being elected to the district boards. They're serving on DBCCs and other oversight groups.  They have nominees for the National Board.

My point is that the NASD is not the enemy unless you are breaking the rules--who other than the criminals thinks the police department needs to be watered down?

The danger is that the SEC simply disbands the NASD and reguating the industry ends up back in the hands of government.

This FIA group is so out of touch with reality that they really do believe that the government agency in charge of prisons would not be bothered by the fact that a warden was repaced with a convict.

Given the lack of ethics that you’ve claimed are common practice from your vast experience in the brokerage industry, I’d have to question your assuming the moral high ground when you claim that certain firms are of ‘questionable repute’.  Assuming, of course, that you even know the difference.

I got to disagree with the thought that NASD in not the enemy unless you are breaking the rules.

My experience spans 30 years in the industry.  I was president of 3 firms, president of a state SIA chapter, an NASD arbitrator, and a principal since the early 1980's.  I got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time (you are welcome to explore all the details and documents) and got a wells notice on supervision issues.

Without boring you with details, I had to defend myself pro se at adjudication that took 2 years to begin, and then had to wait another 9 months to get a decision.  Do they need reform? 

The US Supreme court guarantees legal representation, but not so in the NASD's court. How's that for fair and balanced? 

Enforcement accused me of scienter and even supporting a "cult".  How's that for professionalism?

The OHO panel rejected EVERY major point, but still gave me a 6 month suspension. I have appealed to NAC.

Be wary, my friend, this can happen to you also unless there are big changes at NASD. 

[quote=windward]

I got to disagree with the thought that NASD in not the enemy unless you are breaking the rules.

My experience spans 30 years in the industry.  I was president of 3 firms, president of a state SIA chapter, an NASD arbitrator, and a principal since the early 1980's.  I got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time (you are welcome to explore all the details and documents) and got a wells notice on supervision issues.

Without boring you with details, I had to defend myself pro se at adjudication that took 2 years to begin, and then had to wait another 9 months to get a decision.  Do they need reform? 

The US Supreme court guarantees legal representation, but not so in the NASD's court. How's that for fair and balanced? 

Enforcement accused me of scienter and even supporting a "cult".  How's that for professionalism?

The OHO panel rejected EVERY major point, but still gave me a 6 month suspension. I have appealed to NAC.

Be wary, my friend, this can happen to you also unless there are big changes at NASD. 

[/quote]

As they say, the truth is in the details and you're saying you don't want to bore the reader with the details?

Then you're not wating to bore us with the truth.

I'll start with challenging your statement that you are denied counsel in NASD hearings.  I don't believe you were denied the right to have an attorney with you.

I will also challenge "I was president of three firms" unless those three firms were reincarnations of the same penny stock chop house.  It is common that the same band of happy bandits will change the name of their chop house and move to another location---always staying one step ahead of the regulators.

Cult?  You mean like Blinder Robinson was a cult--a bunch of punks who were chosen because they scored low on a Wunderlich exam, but not so low that they couldn't be trained to be soldiers in the crime family?

Bill, do you think that having a GunnAllen executive on the District 7 Board is a positive development?

How about if you were in favor of honesty in the business?