SEC Mutual Fund Switching Case Resolved

Firm pays over $470,000 to settle switching charges.

By John M. Baker, Esq.

SEC Settles Fund Switching Case

On August 28, 2000 the SEC announced that it had settled an administrative proceeding against Dean Witter Reynolds for failure to supervise a registered representative who engaged in mutual fund switching violations. In re Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., Release No. 34-43215 (Aug. 28, 2000).

The representative was not named, and it is believed that the case against her is proceeding.

Mutual fund switching is the practice of liquidating customer holdings of investment company shares and using the proceeds to purchase shares of other investment companies. Mutual fund switching violates the antifraud provisions of the securities laws when registered representatives, in order to increase their compensation, induce investors to incur the costs associated with redeeming shares of one mutual fund and purchasing the shares of another fund and the benefit to the customer does not justify those costs.

The representative engaged in at least 48 violative switch transactions, the majority between funds with identical or very similar investment objectives. Several of these switch transactions exhibit a circular switching pattern, where the representative’s customers engaged in a series of mutual fund switches and, after generating thousands of dollars in commissions for the representative and Dean Witter and incurring thousands of dollars of contingent deferred sales charges and front-end load fees for the customers, ended up buying back into the same mutual funds that they sold in the first instance.

The SEC stated in the consent order that, while Dean Witter had written supervisory procedures, it did not have a system in place to effectively implement these written procedures.

The order includes the following criticisms of Dean Witter’s systems:

    1. Although all switches purportedly required managerial pre- approval, there was no system in place to alert the branch manager prior to the execution of the transaction that a switch was involved. If the representative chose not to seek prior manager approval, the transaction would be processed without pre-approval.
    2. While Dean Witter’s written policies required that a switch letter be obtained from the client before the trade involving the switch be processed, they were not enforced.
    3. Moreover, the policies were flawed in that they relied upon the representative to prepare the letter with the requisite information (including the reason for the switch and the amount of sales charges incurred) and to mail it to the client. Dean Witter received such letters from clients, if at all, after switch transactions had been executed.
    4. There were few, if any, consequences for failing to obtain switch letters.
    5. What review and approval of mutual fund switches that did take place usually occurred after the switch transaction had been executed, typically by the branch manager or a delegate looking at the monthly switch report and/or at the mutual fund switch letters returned by customers. No one took any steps to verify the accuracy of the representations in the letters.

Dean Witter agreed to reimburse customers $276,702 in charges and interest, to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $200,000, and to retain an independent consultant to review its procedures. The order is available online at http://www.sec.gov/enforce/adminact/34-43215.htm


Copyright 2000, John M. Baker, Esq., Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP, 1220 19th Street, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036 – (202) 822-9611- Fax (202) 822-0140 This article was originally posted to the FundLaw List, http://www.egroups.com/group/fundlaw. To subscribe to FundLaw, send a blank e-mail to fundlaw-subscribe@egroups.com


Nothing herein is intended as legal or financial advice. The law is different in different jurisdictions, and the facts of a particular matter can change the application of the law. Please consult an attorney or your financial advisor before acting upon the information contained in this article.


You may also be interested in:

  • Can I Take My Client Information When I Leave My Firm? When changing firms, and moving between two firms that are part of the Broker Recruiting Protocol, can the broker take client account numbers with her. We get that question a lot. Under the Protocol a broker may take only the client name, address, phone number, email address, and account title of the clients that she serviced ...
  • SEC Subpoenas – Tips for Responding How you respond to an SEC subpoena makes a difference. Tips from an experienced securities attorney.
  • UBS YES Losses? Investors who lost money in UBS’ Yield Enhancement Strategy (YES) may be able to recover their losses
  • Recover GPB Capital Losses After inquiries by the SEC, FINRA and the FBI, GPB Capital has announced significant losses in the value of its investment funds.  Two of its funds, GPB Holdings II and GPB Automotive Portfolio, have reported losses of 25.4% and 39%, respectively according to InvestmentNews.com GPB Capital Holdings is a New York based alternative asset management firm with approximately ...
  • Another SEC Whistleblower Award – Approximately $2 Million. A flurry of whistleblower awards are coming out of the SEC. Yesterday it announced an award of approximately $2 million to a whistleblower who, according to the Commission “provided vital information and assistance that substantially contributed to an ongoing investigation.  The whistleblower’s information would have been difficult for the agency to obtain absent the tip.“ Sallah ...
  • IRS Issues Warning About Coronavirus-Related Scams The IRS and its Criminal Investigation Division have seen a wave of new and evolving phishing schemes against taxpayers. In most cases, the IRS will deposit economic impact payments into the direct deposit account taxpayers previously provided on tax returns. Those taxpayers who have previously filed but not provided direct deposit information to the IRS ...
  • SEC Provides Additional Temporary Regulatory Relief and Assistance to Market Participants Affected by COVID-19 The SEC is providing additional temporary regulatory relief to market participants in response to the effects of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The actions announced today involve (1) parties needing to gain access to make filings on the EDGAR system, (2) certain company filing obligations under Regulation A and Regulation Crowdfunding, and (3) a filing ...
  • Digital Asset Scam Alert The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it has obtained an asset freeze and other emergency relief to halt an ongoing securities fraud perpetrated by a former state senator and two others who bilked investors in and outside the U.S. The SEC’s complaint alleges that Florida residents Robert Dunlap and Nicole Bowdler worked with ...
  • CHRONOS GROUP INVESTIGATION On March 2, Chronos Group, a global cannabinoid company with international production and distribution announced that it was unable to complete its financial report and statements for fiscal 2019 because its audit committee, outside counsel and forensic accountants are reviewing several bulk resin purchases and sales of products through its wholesale channel and the appropriateness ...