Aegis Capital Corp
History Of Aegis Capital Corp
Aegis became a FINRA member in July 1984. Aegis is headquartered in New York,
New York, employs 325 registered representatives, and maintains 23 branches. The Firm
provides, among other things, services in connection with wealth management, retirement
planning, investment banking, and fixed income trading.
READ ALSO: Dealerweb
On September 20, 2017, FINRA accepted an AWC in which the Firm was censured,
fined $27,500 (comprising a $20,000 fine for violating FINRA Rules 5310 and 2010 for
failing to fully and promptly execute marketable customer orders, and a $7,500 fine for
the related supervisory violation), required to update its written supervisory procedures
(“WSPs”), and pay $620.30 of restitution for violations of FINRA Rule 5310, 3110, and
2010 that occurred between October 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015.
On March 6, 2017, FINRA accepted an AWC in which the Firm was censured, fined
$52,000 (of which $17,500 was for violating FINRA Rule 5310’s obligation to fully and
promptly execute marketable customer orders), and required to pay $615.87 of restitution
for violations of, among other things, FINRA Rules 5310 and 2010, that occurred
between July 1, 2014 and September 30, 2014.
On December 30, 2015, FINRA accepted an AWC in which the Firm was censured, fined
$17,500 (of which $12,500 was for violating FINRA Rule 5310’s obligation to fully and
promptly execute marketable customer orders), and required to pay $1,194.89 of
restitution for violations of, among other things, FINRA Rules 5310 and 2010, that
occurred between October 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013.
On June 5, 2015, FINRA accepted an AWC in which the Firm was censured, fined
$85,000 (of which $45,000 was for violating FINRA Rules 5310’s obligation to fully and
promptly execute marketable customer orders, Rule 5310’s predecessor rules, and 2010),
required to pay $2,537.22 of restitution, and required to update its WSPs for violations of,
among other things, FINRA Rules 5310 and 2010, that occurred between October 1, 2011
and December 31, 2011, April 1, 2012 and June 30, 2012, and January 1, 2013 and
March 31, 2013.
Aegis Capital Corp Report
- FINRA Rule 5310(a)(1) requires members, in any transaction for or with a customer
or a customer of another broker-dealer, to “use reasonable diligence to ascertain the
best market for the subject security and buy or sell in such market so that the resultant
price to the customer is as favorable as possible under prevailing market conditions.” - FINRA Rule 2010 requires members, in the conduct of their business, to “observe
high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.” A
violation of FINRA Rule 5310 is also a violation of FINRA Rule 2010. - During the First and Second Corporate Bonds Best Execution Review Periods, Aegis
failed to use reasonable diligence to ascertain the best market for a subject security
and buy or sell in such market so that the resultant price to the customer was as
favorable as possible under prevailing market conditions in connection with 26
corporate bond transactions. Specifically, Aegis sold and bought corporate bonds to
and from its customers at prices that were not as favorable as possible under the
prevailing market conditions, including up to more than 8 percent away from the
relevant market. - Therefore, Aegis violated FINRA Rules 5310 and 2010.
- MSRB Rule G-30(a) states that “[n]o broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer
shall purchase municipal securities for its own account from a customer, or sell
municipal securities for its own account to a customer, except at an aggregate price
(including any mark-up or mark-down) that is fair and reasonable.” - MSRB Rule G-17 requires dealers and municipal advisors to deal fairly with all
persons and not to engage in any deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practice. - During the Municipal Bonds Best Execution Review Period, Aegis failed to purchase
municipal securities for its own account from a customer, or sell municipal securities
for its own account to a customer, at an aggregate price (including any mark-up or
mark-down) that was fair and reasonable in connection with two municipal bond
transactions. Specifically, Aegis sold to its customers at prices that were
approximately 40 percent away from the relevant market. - Therefore, Aegis violated MSRB Rules G-30 and G-17.
- FINRA Rule 5310 (Supplementary Material .06) concerns a broker-dealer’s best execution obligations with respect to customer orders involving securities for which there is limited pricing information or quotations available. Supplementary Material
- .06 requires members to have written policies and procedures in place that address
- how the member will determine the best inter-dealer market for such a security in the
- absence of pricing information or multiple quotations and must document its
- compliance with those policies and procedures.
- MSRB Rule G-18 requires, in pertinent part, that a broker or dealer “must use
reasonable diligence to ascertain the best market for the subject security and buy or
sell in that market so that the resultant price to the customer is as favorable as
possible under prevailing market conditions.” Supplementary Material .06 concerns
customer transactions involving securities for which there is limited pricing
information or quotations available and requires that each dealer have written policies
and procedures in place that address how the dealer will make its best execution
determinations with respect to such a security in the absence of pricing information or
multiple quotations and must document its compliance with those policies and
procedures. - MSRB Rule G-18 (Supplementary Material .08) requires dealers to conduct, at a
minimum, annual reviews of its policies and procedures for determining the best
available market for the executions of its customers’ transactions. The periodic
reviews “must assess whether its policies and procedures are reasonably designed to
achieve best execution, taking into account the quality of the executions the dealer is
obtaining under its current policies and procedures, changes in market structure, new
entrants, the availability of additional pre-trade and post-trade data, and the
availability of new technologies. . . .” A firm is required to make prompt
modifications to its policies and procedures in light of such review. - During all relevant review periods, the Firm failed to have written policies and
procedures in place that address how to determine the best inter-dealer market for a
security in the absence of pricing information or multiple quotations. Specifically,
the Firm’s procedures restate the rule’s requirements, provide some limited guidance,
and set forth relevant order handling procedures. The procedures, however, fail to
describe specific order handling steps the Firm will take to address how it will
determine the best inter-dealer market in the absence of pricing or multiple quotation
information. - During the Municipal Bonds Best Execution Review Period, the Firm also failed to
perform reasonable periodic reviews of its policies and procedures in accordance with
Supplementary Material .08. If it had performed a reasonable review of its order
handling policies and procedures, it would have discovered that it never established
the required order handling steps to determine the best inter-dealer market for a
security in the absence of pricing information or multiple quotations. - Therefore, the Firm violated FINRA Rules 5310 (Supplementary Material .06) and
2010 and MSRB Rule G-18 (Supplementary Material .06 and .08)
Penalties, Punishments & Sanctions
- A censure;
- A fine of $80,000 (comprising a $60,000 fine for violating FINRA Rules 5310, 5310
(Supplementary Material .06) and 2010, and MSRB Rules G-30, G-18
(Supplementary Materials .06 and .08), and G-17, ($20,000 of which pertains to
violations of MSRB Rules G-30, G-18, and G-17) and a $20,000 fine for the
violations of FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010, and MSRB Rule G-27 ($5,000 of which
pertains to violations of MSRB Rule G-27)); - Restitution is ordered to be paid to the customers listed on Exhibits A-C to this AWC
in the total amount of $43,912.89, plus interest at the rate set forth in Section
6621(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6621(a)(2), from the date of the
relevant transactions, until the date this AWC is accepted by the National
Adjudicatory Council (“NAC”).
A registered principal on behalf of Respondent shall submit satisfactory proof of
payment of restitution and prejudgment interest (separately specifying the date and
amount of each paid to each of the customers associated with the transactions listed
on Exhibits A-C) or of reasonable and documented efforts undertaken to effect
restitution. Such proof shall be submitted by email to
En***************@FI***.org from a work-related account of the registered
principal of Respondent. The email must identify Respondent and the case number
and include a copy of the check, money order, or other method of payment. This
proof shall be provided by email to En***************@FI***.org no later than
120 days after the date of the notice of acceptance of the AWC.
If for any reason Respondent cannot locate any customer associated with the
transactions identified in Exhibits A-C after reasonable and documented efforts
within 120 days after the date of the notice of acceptance of the AWC, or such
additional period agreed to by FINRA , Respondent shall forward any undistributed
restitution and interest to the appropriate escheat, unclaimed property, or abandoned
property fund for the state in which the customer is last known to have
resided. Respondent shall provide satisfactory proof of such action to FINRA in the
manner described above, within 14 calendar days of forwarding the undistributed
restitution and interest to the appropriate state authority; and - An undertaking to revise the Firm’s written policies and procedures with respect to
the areas described above in paragraphs 12, 17, and 20. Within 30 business days of
acceptance of this AWC by the NAC, a registered principal of the Firm shall submit
to the COMPLIANCE ASSISTANT, MARKET REGULATION
ENFORCEMENT, 15200 OMEGA DRIVE, ROCKVILLE, MD 20850, a signed,
dated letter, or an e-mail from a work-related account of the registered principal to
Ma******************@fi***.org , providing the following information: (1) a - reference to this matter; (2) a representation that the Firm has revised its written
- policies and procedures to address the deficiencies described above; and, (3) the date
- the revised procedures were implemented.
Read About: Kevin Paul Rast
Aegis Capital Corp Review
During the periods of January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017 (the “First Corporate Bonds
Best Execution Review Period”), and October 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 (the
“Second Corporate Bonds Best Execution Review Period”), Aegis violated FINRA Rules
5310 and 2010 by failing to use reasonable diligence to ascertain the best market for a
subject security and buy or sell in such market so that the resultant price to the customer
was as favorable as possible under prevailing market conditions in connection with 26
corporate bond transactions.
During the period of October 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018 (the “Municipal Bonds
Best Execution Review Period”), Aegis violated Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(“MSRB”) Rules G-30 and G-17 by failing to purchase municipal securities for its own
account from a customer, or sell municipal securities for its own account to a customer, at
an aggregate price (including any mark-up or mark-down) that was fair and reasonable in
connection with two municipal bond transactions.
During all of the relevant review periods, Aegis violated FINRA Rules 5310
(Supplementary Material .06) and 2010 and MSRB Rule G-18 (Supplementary Material
.06) by failing to have written policies and procedures in place that address how to
determine the best inter-dealer market for securities in the absence of pricing information
or multiple quotations.
During the Municipal Bonds Best Execution Review Period, Aegis violated MSRB Rule
G-18 (Supplementary Material .08) by failing to conduct, at a minimum, reasonably
designed annual reviews of its policies and procedures for determining the best available
market for the executions of its customers’ transactions to assess whether its policies and
procedures were reasonably designed to achieve best execution.
During all of the relevant review periods, Aegis violated FINRA Rules 3110(a) and (b),
and 2010, and MSRB Rules G-27(b) and (c) by failing to establish and maintain a system, including WSPs, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable
securities laws and regulations, and with applicable FINRA and MSRB rules
Who is the Financial Adviser?
A financial adviser or advisor is a professional who offers financial services to clients based on their financial situation. In several countries, financial advisors have to finish specific training and register with a regulatory body to provide advice.
How To Spot A Fraud Finance Advisor (Infographic)
Help For Victims Of Aegis Capital Corp
If you have lost funds because of misrepresentation, unsuitable investment, or unsuitable investment strategy from Aegis Capital Corp. Then you can take legal action and get justice. Fraud, Malpractice & dereliction of duty should not be taken lightly, especially in this industry. We highly suggest that you notify authorities or seek legal action if your financial advisor or brokerage firm fails to abide by FINRA’s rules are regulations.
Read About: Edmund Zack
Financial advisors are regulatory & legally obligated to suggest (recommend) the most suitable investments/investment strategies to their clients. Their suggestions should have their client’s best interests and should be appropriate for their client’s goals and needs. Similarly, the brokerage firm which hires financial advisors also has a regulatory & legal obligation to keep a close watch and supervise their Financial Advisors’ practices & behavior. They need to make sure that the financial advisor is not being manipulative or having an unreasonable bias towards certain investments. If the financial advisor and/or the brokerage firm breaches these duties, then the client/customer may be entitled to a full or partial recovery of their losses.
Financial advisors need to have the interest of their clients when giving suggestions related to investments and investment strategies. Reasonable basis suitability requires the advisor to do their best to analyze & identify the risks and rewards associated with their suggested investment and/or investment strategy.
