You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Accountability’ category.

Delaware's Heroes
They offered to give it all up for you; many didn’t make it back…

Did you vote?  (66% of America did not.)

If so, thank you for honoring America’s veterans.  If not, take one minute to think of you going into hell for something you so strongly believe, perhaps more than anything, only to have future generations say…pshaww… this is way too much effort, I’ll get a tub of ice cream and find something good on Netflicks instead.

They fought so you could have the right to vote. 🙂 Now go ahead and post your pictures on your social media sites reminding all of us to honor our veterans this Veteran’s Day….

Advertisements

When General Grant was first given command of the Northern Army, he rushed into battle at the Battle of the Wilderness… After three days of hard fighting with great numbers of casualties, the two armies separated. The Northern troops, used to their previous commander, began to bivouac to regroup and lick their wounds…  Allegedly  two men were digging embankments and the General rode up on them, asked them what they were doing.  “Setting up camp” they told him.  “We’re not camping” he said, “Tell the men to prepare to move out. Johnny Reb is wounded; time to chase him down for the kill…”

The life and energy that rippled though those troops is now legendary.  Such is the duty and obligation of a leader….

Today, when the internet surprised me with the completely unexpected news that my commander in chief had decided the most hated of entities, Comcast and Verizon, were now going to be under government control, I understood the awe and appreciation that those men in a muddy Virginia swamp must have felt… Instead of licking wounds from Tuesday, this man says: what are you doing?  We got to fight.  We got work to do.  We got to turn this thing around… and if we rest, we lose. We aren’t resting…

Let’s take on these broadband providers, you know? These guys who keep you waiting 45 minutes on the phone to talk to someone whose thick Indian accent you can’t understand… you know? Just so you never get what you wasted 45 minutes for…..

And while we are at it Mr. President, can we please have our Justice Department use our courts to smash both major Telecoms into pieces, break them up like we did Ma Bell which made telephone so much more competitive and cheaper and led to what it is today?

So instead of feeling helpless, beat up, forlorn, defeated… our president instead says the equivalent of: “Let’s hunt some Orc….. ”

Instantly rejuvenated,  we answer:  YEAH!!!!!!   The Internet shall always belong to ‘We, The People’, first….. That is worth spilling blood …..

The top 0.1% (consisting of 160,000 families worth $73m on average) hold 22% of America’s wealth, just shy of the 1929 peak—and almost the same share as the bottom 90% of the population.

A tidbit upon which historians will agree, was ultimately why the Democrats were not able to capitalize on the phenomenal results of today’s thriving booming American economy.

Republican policies created this imbalance.  But it is Obama who as CEO, gets the blame for its residual effects.

How to fix it?  A marginally accurate 73% tax on incomes over $73 million would turn the tables nicely with no residual effect to the other 99.9% of the population…..

Came across an amazing chart from the Paris School of Economic’s database.  It allows you to customize your search for any time or place over the world.

My area of expertise is within the US and here is what I wanted to see:  the percentage of national income earned by the top 0.01%…. not just the top 1%, but the top-tip 0.01%.

Tax rate impact firsttax rate impact secondtax rate impact thirdtax rate impact fourthtax rate impact fifth

This shows the past 100 years of national income percentage earned by the top 0.01%. There are some very striking facts noticed by those looking at this data for the first time.

1) The year 2012 was one of the record highest, beaten only by two years during WWI when the rest of the world was embroiled in war, and our top echelon were selling to both sides…. If one extracts that exception, then in 2012 we gave the top 0.01% (one hundredth of one percent) more of our national income than at any time previously recorded.

2) The Great Depression did little to affect the income percentages (1928-1932);  Roosevelt however (1933-onward), did a lot.

3) During America’s most prosperous times ever, after WWII made us the sole global economy, the incomes of the top 0.01% stayed under 1% of national income across the next 43 years. (1943-1986)

4) The Reagan Tax Cut of 1986 caused a doubling of the top 1%’s income in just 2 years. from 1% in 1986 to 1.99% in 1988.

5) The percentage again dropped under 2% after Clinton’s tax hike in 1992 causing a robust expansion, but passed that 2% mark in 1997 never to return.

6) During the “w” Bush years, the percentage continuously climbed peaking in 2007 and would have peaked higher in 2008 but the recession clipped the last two months off that year. Despite that, 2008 was the 2nd highest grossing percentage up to that time (discounting the WWI anomaly) across almost 100 years of data.

7) The Great Recession (2008-9)  as did the Great Depression (1929-32), had little effect on the top 0.01% percentage of national income. At no point did their yearly take dip below 3%, a mark first crossed in 2005 (if one continues disregarding the anomaly of the First World War).

8) The rebound ability of an economy at large is hampered when more money collects at the top and is not returned as investment to the bottom. Though small in percentage points, those difference of those 3 percentage points ( from under 1.0 to 4.0) translates to $500 billion that did not impact our economy because it went to less than 31,000 Americans.  Considering our TARP was passed only for $800 billion, we only saw $300 billion net running through our economy. because $500 billion of the $800 billion was handed over to less than 31,000 people then quickly whisked away to foreign bank accounts beyond the reach of the IRS.

9) Although difficult to state through all the multiple influences that impact economies daily, the extensive overview shown by this chart makes it clear that were we to have another great recession, we should first use the incomes of our top 0.01% to first rebuild our national economy as did Roosevelt, and not assume that those wealthy will do so voluntarily as did our creators and negotiators behind this current rebound.

10)  Data from 2013 will be most interesting.  The Bush Tax Cuts for the top 0.05% were rescinded that year, and at that point, our economy took off ( at least when Republicans weren’t threatening to shut it all down).  If it does indeed show a drop in the top 1%’s income, then we will know that in order to have robust recoveries, those at the top need to be taxed more, not less.

As for politics, this needs to be taken to heart.  Anyone who argues for less taxes on the top 1%, be they Democrat or Republican, needs to be shown the door…. We now have sufficient data to know with certainty, and from it, we can see all evidence points that higher marginal tax rates do benefit the middle class and subsequently the economy at large…..

This historical chart rings that out, clear as a bell at the end of a day’s trading…..

Today, instead of paying $2.84 for per gallon of gas, we’d be paying $2.94: the price of gas last Friday.

Now because we aren’t paying what we paid last Friday for gas, we can’t have improvements on any of our roads.  We won’t be able to fill pot holes.  We can’t properly plow the roads during snow time. Bottlenecks will remain bottlenecks with no plans to expand the highway system.

And there will be 7,700 fewer people working at high paying jobs in Delaware as a result…

Thanks Valerie Longhurst, for making Delaware a second tier state…… What on earth were you thinking?

There is Common Core.

There is gross inequality of the top 1%.

There is the need for money.

There is the need to tax the top 1%.

There is the need for a minimum wage that is livable.

There is a need for more funding to keep our infrastructure intact.

There is a need for more cash applied to educating those in poverty.

There is a need for more power not made from carbon.

There is a need to actively insist on lower greenhouse emissions.

There is a need to spend money to buttress our seashores.

There is a need to spend money on fighting diseases such as Ebola.

There is a need to have and 11:1 student teacher ratio in schools at greater than 50% reduced lunch.

There is a need to let teachers teach.

There is a need to make sure all children get three good meals a day.

There is a need to make sure all children receive vaccinations.

There is a need to make sure all failed bridges are repaired.

There is a need to make sure that all Americans can get medical coverage.

There is a need to build for more dams as the West gets parched.

There is a need for higher Social Security payments to those who lost their IRA’s in the last Depression.

There is a need for preserving wildlife rapidly becoming extinct.

There is a need for putting people to work in a CCC type of organization that leaves a lasting legacy on the American landscape.

There is a need for women to never worry about unwanted pregnancies.

There is a need for minorities to never worried about being treated like they are not the majority race.

—===—

As you can see. there is a need.  As you can see some people have all the money.  As you can see the only solution is to tax those at the top fairly (at the highest possible rate) and spend that in rebuilding our nation… Consider it as an equity loan given to the wealthy, whose payment has now come due…..

income_growth_and_inequality

You should be making $18,000 more a year right now.  And would, except for the inequality put in place  beginning with the trickle down policies of Ronald Reagan… now more appropriately called “tinkle” down economics… 

The bottom get pissed on.

The heavy line shows where you would be if the average rate of growth from across the years ’79 to ’10 were applied evenly.  The lighter line shows the reality….

99% of us are all earning an average of $18,000 less than we should be…  So how does this break down?

Average household incomes grew by 53.4 percent from 1979 to 2007. But that didn’t break down equally:

  • The bottom fifth of households saw their income go up by 29.2 percent, well below the 53.4 percent average.
  • Income for the middle fifth of households grew by a measly 19.7 percent.
  • But how did people a little higher up, but not at the very top, do? A little better, but still below average: households between the 81st and 90th percentiles—so in the bottom half of the top fifth of the income ladder—had just 39.1 percent income growth. Again, well below that average of 53.4.
  • So how far up do you have to go before you hit the average? The 91st to the 95th percentile almost got there, with 53 percent average growth. But they fell just short. Households between the 96th and 99th percentile seriously exceeded 53.4 percent, though. They had average income growth of 78.1 percent.
  • That’s nothing compared to the top 1 percent, though: Their income grew by 244.7 percent, close to five times the average.

It is clear that most of the overall income gains from 1979 to 2007 bypassed the vast majority of American households. As such, their living standards are lower than they would be had these gains been shared more broadly.

Ways To Share More Broadly.

A.  Raise the Minimum Wage:  $10.10 is a start.  

B.  Organize More (and throw out ineffective current bosses) Unions. Override All State Laws Outlawing Unions.

C.  Reduce Wage Theft:  charging workers for uniforms, drinks, food, supplies. Cheating on overtime.

D. Tax the top 1% appropriately…  Include Capital Gains as income. Tax Corporations at the same rate as individuals. Raise the top marginal percents to these levels…

  • Over $1 billion in income…  tax rate of 60%
  • $500 million to $1 billion in income  = 55%
  • $100 million to $500 million in income  = 50%
  • $50 million to $100 million in income =  45%
  • All the rest: no change….  

On top of this, allow all money put into capital improvements, to be deducted dollar for dollar. (Capital improvements require building things).  The rational is that if you put that money into capital improvements, you are improving this nation as much as if you were directly paying taxes to it.  Perhaps more so.

This can be done, but it must be done with a Democratic Executive, and over 60 Democrats in the Senate (or change the filibuster rules), and a fully Democratic House.  That is what has to happen for any change.  If it doesn’t happen then Americans rightly get what they deserve for being stupid.  Because we all know that Republicans are quite happy with the very fact that you ARE making $18,000 less than you should and quite happy that they are the ones receiving it, not you……. 

It wasn’t supposed to go that way. And it shouldn’t go that way….. 

 

 

 

 

 

if you are a Republican, and distraught at how the Republican Party has dissipated over the past 10 years here in Delaware, and wish it would revive, you need to take control of your party from the henchmen, and vote Simpler over Sher….

Simpler was running this race, and Sher came in at literally the last half hour forcing a primary.  The News journal quotes that she had conversations with Charlie Copeland and he convinced her to run.  From her campaign, and her spread in today’s News Journal, it is obvious what transpired…

Simpler was not a rabid Republican.  The party’s ideologues felt he could not become the state’s only Republican winner which he had a chance to become, and now with Chip Flower’s being out of the race, he is running against someone even Democrats don’t like:…. Tom Carper’s little buddy….  So by adding all the Republicans, and half the Democrats who don’t appreciate Tom Carper, you get 60% of the vote… Looks like a Republican can finally take one office….

But in comes Charlie Copeland with assurances of support for Sher, and convinces her to jump in….

It would be wise for Republicans to reflect, that ever since Charlie Copeland emerged into making the upper judgments of the Republican Party, they have literally slid into a hole with slippery mud walls….  From being a strong contender to a joke, that entire party structure has become… And now, finally when a good candidate emerges, he scrambles to scuttle him.

If Republicans don’t want to completely toss in the towel, they need to get off their ass this September 9th, and vote for the most qualified treasurer candidate we have ever seen.  And then, after these elections, begin to change their party from the top down….

 

As background information, here is the link and below is the copy of the SEC report citing David Marvin currently of Delaware’s Cash Management Board, and fining his firm M & P, $976,000 dollars…

Here is Celia’s account of last years inside dealing, targeting Marvin as the prime whiner in the infamous Cash Management Board pushback… It just dawned on me that Marvin probably handles investments for Markell and Blevins. Which would if true, provide clarity to the mechanizations that took place this past year.

Since the 15 year expiration is about or has already hit, (it was difficult to find), I am posting the entire judgment here, so it will last, if the SEC eliminates it off-line…. Without Further Ado….

=======

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

 

INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940
Release No. 1841 / September 30, 1999

 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-10072

 

In the Matter of

MARVIN & PALMER ASSOCIATES, INC.,
DAVID F. MARVIN,
MACTHOM ASSOCIATES, INC. and
THOMAS E. DUBIS

ORDER INSTITUTING PUBLIC PROCEEDDINGS, MAKING FINDINGS, IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS, AND ISSUING CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER

 

I.

 

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest to institute public administrative proceedings pursuant to Sections 203(e), (f) and (k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), against Marvin & Palmer Associates, Inc. (“M&P”), David F. Marvin (“Marvin”), MacThom Associates, Inc. (“MacThom”) and Thomas E. Dubis (“Dubis”)(collectively “Respondents”).

 

In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, each of the Respondents has submitted an Offer of Settlement (“Offer”) to the Commission, which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission or in which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings contained herein, except for the jurisdiction of the Commission over them and over the subject matter of this proceeding, which is admitted, Respondents consent to the issuance of this Order Instituting Public Proceedings, Making Findings, Imposing Remedial Sanctions, and Issuing Cease-and-Desist Order (“Order”) and to the entry of the findings, cease-and-desist order, and remedial sanctions set forth below.

 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that proceedings pursuant to Sections 203(e), (f) and (k) of the Advisers Act be, and hereby are, instituted.

 

II.

 

On the basis of this Order and the Offers submitted by the Respondents, the Commission makes the following findings:

 

RESPONDENTS

 

A.Marvin & Palmer Associates, Inc., incorporated and located in Wilmington, Delaware, has been registered with the Commission as an investment adviser since August 1986. As of March 11, 1999, M&P had approximately 62 clients and $7.6 billion in assets under management. M&P’s clients are primarily large institutional investors.

 

B.David F. Marvin, age 58, resides in Delaware and is Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and 50 percent owner of M&P. Marvin is the largest shareholder of M&P and is responsible for the overall management of the firm.

 

C.MacThom Associates, Inc., located in Kent, Ohio, was formed in 1996 and is wholly owned and operated by Thomas E. Dubis. The firm was ostensibly formed for the purpose of providing research services to M&P. At no time has MacThom been registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer or an investment adviser.

 

D.Thomas E. Dubis, age 58, resides in Kent, Ohio.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

E.This proceeding involves the failure of M&P, a registered investment adviser, to disclose to its clients its use of at least $920,000 in soft dollars derived from a directed brokerage arrangement with a registered broker-dealer (“Broker”) in violation of provisions of the Advisers Act. The term “soft dollars” generally describes an arrangement whereby an investment adviser uses commission credits generated by securities trades executed in advisory client accounts to pay for research, brokerage, or other products, services, or expenses.

 

THE SOFT DOLLAR ARRANGEMENT

 

F.Since 1991, M&P has maintained a soft dollar arrangement with the Broker. Pursuant to the arrangement, M&P receives $.50 in soft dollar credits for each $1.00 in brokerage commissions directed to the Broker.

 

G.In February 1996, at Marvin’s behest, M&P directed the Broker to begin paying invoices submitted by MacThom, ostensibly for research performed by MacThom for M&P. In fact, MacThom conducted only a small amount of research, with a total value of $63,000 during the relevant time period. Most of the soft dollar payments were used by MacThom to compensate Dubis, MacThom’s principal and a close friend of Marvin, as well as the family of a deceased business associate and friend of Marvin, for their efforts in making introductions and referrals to M&P in its early years. From February 1996 through August 1998, the Broker paid $920,000 to MacThom, and MacThom and Dubis paid $635,000 of this amount to this family. With the exception of the research valued at $63,000, the payments to MacThom provided no benefit to the clients of M&P whose commissions generated the soft dollars used to make the payments.

 

M&P’S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE SOFT DOLLAR ARRANGEMENT

 

H.Neither the existence nor the terms of the soft dollar arrangement were disclosed to M&P’s clients in their advisory contracts or otherwise. Furthermore, M&P failed to amend its Form ADV after directing the Broker to begin paying invoices from MacThom and the arrangement was never disclosed in M&P’s Form ADV in effect between February 1996 and July 1998, the period during which the arrangement was in effect.

 

I.M&P failed to disclose the types of products and services it received pursuant to its soft dollar arrangement in response to Item 12 of Part II of the Form ADV, which requires registered investment advisers to describe the factors considered in selecting brokers, including the products, research and services obtained, and any procedures used to direct client transactions to a particular broker in return for products or services.

 

J.From February 1996 to July 1998, M&P’s Form ADV reflected a “no” answer in response to Part II Item 13.A., which asked whether the adviser “receives some economic benefit (including commissions, equipment or non-research services) from a non-client in connection with giving advice to clients.” In view of its soft dollar arrangement with the Broker, and the uses to which the payments were put, this response was false.

 

K.During the period in which the arrangement was in effect, M&P amended its Form ADV on at least eight occasions. Marvin reviewed and signed all but one of M&P’s Forms ADV and amendments filed with the Commission.

 

III.

 

LEGAL ANALYSIS

 

A.An investment adviser has a duty to disclose to clients all material information which might incline an investment adviser consciously or unconsciously to render advice which is not disinterested. SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. 180, 191-92 (1963). A fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it important. Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 231-32 (1988).

 

B.Soft dollar arrangements are material because of the potential conflict of interest arising from an adviser’s receipt of some benefit in exchange for directing brokerage on behalf of client accounts. See Kingsley, Jennison, McNulty & Morse, Inc., 55 SEC Docket 2434, 2441 (Dec. 23, 1993);Interpretive Release Concerning the Scope of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act Release No. 23170, 35 SEC Docket 905, 909 (Apr. 23, 1986) (“1986 Soft Dollar Release“).

 

C.Moreover, disclosure of soft dollar arrangements is specifically required by Form ADV.1 See Oakwood Counselors, Inc., Advisers Act Release No. 1614, 63 SEC Docket 2485 (Feb. 10, 1997); S Squared Technology Corp., Advisers Act Release No. 1575, 62 SEC Docket 1560 (August 7, 1996). Form ADV embodies mandatory disclosure requirements to ensure that material information regarding brokerage placement practices and policies are disclosed to investors. See Investment Adviser Requirements Concerning Disclosure, Recordkeeping, Applications for Registration and Annual Filings, Advisers Act Release No. 664 (Jan. 30, 1979); Disclosure of Brokerage Placement Practices By Certain Regulated Investment Companies and Certain Other Issuers, Advisers Act Release No. 665 (Jan. 30, 1979) (“1979 Soft Dollar Release“).

 

D.Items 12 and 13, and Schedule F, of Part II of Form ADV require registrants to disclose soft dollar arrangements with broker-dealers. For investment advisers who have discretionary authority to select the broker-dealers to be used to execute trades in client accounts, Item 12.B. requires a description of the factors considered in selecting brokers and determining the reasonableness of their commissions. Further, Item 12.B. requires advisers to describe the “products, research and services” given to the adviser or related persons, if the value of such “products, research and services” is a factor in selecting broker-dealers.2 Item 13 requires an investment adviser to disclose and describe any arrangement whereby it either receives an economic benefit from a non-client in connection with giving advice to clients or directly or indirectly compensates any person for client referrals.3 These disclosure requirements are designed to “assist clients in determining whether to hire an adviser or continue a contract with an adviser, and permit them to evaluate any conflicts of interest inherent in the adviser’s arrangements for allocating brokerage.” Kingsley, 55 SEC Docket at 2441-42; See S Squared, Advisers Act Release No. 1575, 62 SEC Docket 1560.

 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 206(1) AND 206(2) OF THE ADVISERS ACT

 

E.Sections 206(1) and (2) prohibit an investment adviser from employing any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud clients or from engaging in any transaction, practice or course of business that operates as a fraud on clients. Sections 206(1) and (2) establish a fiduciary duty for investment advisers to act for the benefit of their clients. Transamerica Mortgage Advisers, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 17 (1979). An investment adviser’s failure to disclose its soft dollar practices violates Sections 206(1) and 206(2). Renaissance Capital Advisors, Inc., Advisers Act Release No. 1688, 1997 SEC LEXIS 2643 (Dec. 22, 1997) (Sections 206(1) and 206(2));Oakwood, Advisers Act Release No. 1614, 63 SEC Docket 2485 (Sections 206(1) and 206(2)); S Squared, Advisers Act Release No. 1575, 62 SEC Docket 1560 (Section 206(2)). Scienter is an element of a Section 206(1) violation. Steadman v. SEC, 603 F.2d 1126, 1134 (5th Cir. 1979). Proof of scienter is not required to establish a violation of Section 206(2). SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. at 195.

 

F.M&P willfully violated Sections 206(1) and (2) by making materially false statements and omissions in M&P’s Form ADV and by failing otherwise to disclose to its clients that M&P was using soft dollar credits to pay non-research expenses.

 

G.Marvin willfully aided and abetted and caused M&P’s violations of Sections 206(1) and (2) by knowingly or recklessly making materially false and omissive statements in M&P’s Form ADV and by failing otherwise to disclose to M&P’s clients that M&P was using soft dollar credits to pay non-research expenses.

 

H.MacThom and Dubis caused M&P’s violations of Sections 206(1) and (2) by knowingly participating in a course of conduct which they knew or should have known was a violation of M&P’s fiduciary duty to its clients.

 

I.As a result of the conduct of M&P, Marvin, MacThom and Dubis, M&P and MacThom were unjustly enriched by $857,000.

 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 207 OF THE ADVISERS ACT

 

J.Section 207 of the Advisers Act makes it unlawful for any person willfully to make any untrue statement of material fact in any registration application or report filed with the Commission or willfully to omit to state in any such application or report any material fact required to be stated therein.4 A person violates Section 207 by filing false amendments to Form ADV. Stanley Peter Kerry, Advisers Act Release No. 1550, 61 SEC Docket 431 (January 25, 1996).

 

K.M&P’s “no” answer to Item 13.A. in its Form ADV in effect from February 1996 forward was false. M&P was in fact receiving an economic benefit from Broker, a non-client, in the form of soft dollar credits and payments to MacThom for M&P’s benefit. M&P’s response to Item 12.B. in its Form ADV in effect from February 1996 was misleading in that the response failed to disclose that M&P was receiving non-research services from Broker in return for directing client brokerage.

 

L.M&P’s omissions and false and misleading disclosures regarding its soft dollar arrangement were material.

 

M.M&P and Marvin willfully violated Section 207 in that they made untrue statements of material fact in M&P’s Form ADV and failed to disclose in M&P’s Form ADV the existence of the soft dollar arrangement and the non-research services received from the Broker.

 

IV.

 

Based on the foregoing the Commission finds that:

 

A.M&P willfully violated Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 207 of the Advisers Act.

 

B.Marvin willfully violated Section 207 of the Advisers Act and willfully aided and abetted and caused M&P’s violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act.

 

C.MacThom and Dubis caused M&P’s violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act.

 

V.

 

In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate to accept the Respondents’ Offers of Settlement.

 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

 

A.M&P shall be, and hereby is, censured;

 

B.M&P shall cease and desist from committing or causing any violation and any future violation of Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 207 of the Advisers Act;

 

C.M&P and MacThom shall, jointly and severally, within 30 days of the entry of this Order, pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest in the total amount of $976,980 to the United States Treasury. Such payment shall be: (A) made by United States postal money order, certified check, bank cashier’s check or bank money order; (B) made payable to the Securities and Exchange Commission; (C) hand-delivered or mailed to the Comptroller, Securities and Exchange Commission, Operations Center, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Stop 0-3, VA 22312; and (D) submitted under cover letter that identifies M&P and MacThom as Respondents in these proceedings, and the file number of these proceedings, a copy of which cover letter and money order or check shall be sent to Ronald C. Long, District Administrator, Philadelphia District Office, Securities and Exchange Commission, 601 Walnut Street, Suite 1120E, Philadelphia, PA 19106;

 

D.M&P shall, within 30 days of the entry of this Order, pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $50,000 to the United States Treasury. Such payment shall be: (A) made by United States postal money order, certified check, bank cashier’s check or bank money order; (B) made payable to the Securities and Exchange Commission; (C) hand-delivered or mailed to the Comptroller, Securities and Exchange Commission, Operations Center, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Stop 0-3, VA 22312; and (D) submitted under cover letter that identifies M&P as a Respondent in these proceedings, and the file number of these proceedings, a copy of which cover letter and money order or check shall be sent to Ronald C. Long, District Administrator, Philadelphia District Office, Securities and Exchange Commission, 601 Walnut Street, Suite 1120E, Philadelphia, PA 19106;

 

E.M&P shall comply with its undertakings as specified in its Offer of Settlement to perform and implement the following:

 

1.Within 60 days of the entry of this Order, M&P will revise its procedures manual to include a section setting forth policies and procedures regarding soft dollar arrangements with broker-dealers. Included in these procedures will be the requirement that all soft dollar arrangements be approved by in-house counsel employed at M&P. M&P will hold a mandatory meeting with its employees to review policies and procedures including those relating to soft dollar arrangements. Attendance at the meeting will be recorded and a copy maintained in the files of M&P.

 

2.Within 30 days of the entry of this Order, M&P will file with the Commission and provide each of its advisory clients an amended Form ADV disclosing all material terms of any soft dollar arrangement it has with any broker-dealer;

 

3.Within 30 days of the entry of this Order, M&P will provide a copy of this Order to all of its current clients;

 

4.Within 60 days of the entry of this Order, M&P will file an affidavit with the Commission’s staff, addressed to the attention of the District Administrator of the Commission’s Philadelphia District Office, 601 Walnut Street. Suite 1120E, Philadelphia, PA 19106, setting forth the details of its compliance with the undertakings set forth in subparagraphs E.1., 2. and 3. above;

 

5.For a period of one year after the entry of this Order, M&P will provide a copy of this Order to all of its prospective clients;

 

6.One year from the entry of this Order, M&P will file an affidavit with the staff of the Commission certifying its compliance with subparagraph E.5. above.

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

 

F. Marvin shall be, and hereby is, censured;

 

G.Marvin shall cease and desist from committing or causing any violation and any future violation of Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 207 of the Advisers Act;

 

H.Marvin shall, within 30 days of the entry of this Order, pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $25,000 to the United States Treasury. Such payment shall be: (A) made by United States postal money order, certified check, bank cashier’s check or bank money order; (B) made payable to the Securities and Exchange Commission; (C) hand-delivered or mailed to the Comptroller, Securities and Exchange Commission, Operations Center, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Stop 0-3, VA 22312; and (D) submitted under cover letter that identifies Marvin as a Respondent in these proceedings, and the file number of these proceedings, a copy of which cover letter and money order or check shall be sent to Ronald C. Long, District Administrator, Philadelphia District Office, Securities and Exchange Commission, 601 Walnut Street, Suite 1120E, Philadelphia, PA 19106;

 

I.MacThom and Dubis shall cease and desist from causing any violation and any future violation of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act.

 

By the Commission.

Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary

 


 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 The “safe harbor” provided by Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) does not excuse an investment adviser from these disclosure obligations. The safe harbor protects an investment adviser only from charges of breach of fiduciary duty for failing to obtain the lowest available commission rate where the amount of commission is reasonable in relation to the value of brokerage and research services provided. 1986 Soft Dollar Release, 35 SEC Docket at 907.
2 See 1986 Soft Dollar Release, 35 SEC Docket at 909. There is a presumption that receipt of non-research and non-brokerage products or services, except where nominally valued, is a factor in the selection of brokers. 1979 Soft Dollar Release at n.6.
3 The 1986 Soft Dollar Release noted the relevance of Form ADV, Part II, Item 13 to soft dollar disclosure. 35 SEC Docket at 909 n.32.
4 Section 204 of the Advisers Act and Rule 204-1 thereunder require periodic filing and amendment of Forms ADV by investment advisers. Pursuant to Rule 204-1(d), a Form ADV or an amendment thereto is a “report” within the meaning of Section 207.

 

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/ia-1841.htm

 


 

Modified:10/01/1999

 

A panel of judges has ruled that subsidies are no longer legal. For millions of Americans, this means they will immediately be slapped with charges up to $800 a month for what many are paying under a hundred…

They will drop their insurance out of necessity, or will be dropped for non-payment.

Republicans are celebrating this…

When the law was written in 2010 it was assumed that all states would do their own exchanges. In states that are doing their own exchanges, there will be no change. That is what the law says and as Republicans say: the law is law….

But for states like Delaware which rightly decided that the Federal exchange would be cheaper for its citizens because of the larger pool, that line in the law was never changed…. It says “state exchanges”… (Remember the law is alleged to be some 15,000 pages long, and is still, believe it or not, something I have not yet read….)

But in one line the word “state” is indeed there and that, according to this particular court, means that it is illegal for the federal exchanges to be subsidized… I have looked, and at this early moment just hours after the decision, there is no confirmation (just estimates) on how many insured that will affect…..

But to all you who were insured in the Federal exchange? Guess what? You got no Obama care….

Kaiser-State-Exchange-Map
Map courtesy of Kaiser

To hear the far extremist right saying “ha, ha, ha, suffer bitches” you can go here or here

Now…

On this same day, another Federal court in the same city, decided this was indeed legal. There were two cases before two different conservative courts, and we got two opposite decisions. It now goes up the next step and will probably hit the Supreme Court. Which should mean that IF insurance companies are willing, the Obamacare program can continue as is until struck down… But as we saw with Obamacare last November, when it comes to making money, private insurance companies are ruthless and lack heart…

Second… to fix this, all we need is a bill put forth, worded like this…. A bill: To amend the ACA Healthcare law by removing the word “state” and inserting “all or any”…..

That will happen in the Senate, but will never happen in the House…. Which is why, in whatever state you read this, you must get Democrats into your Congressional seat… IF you succeed, or if ENOUGH of you succeed, your insurance can and will continue… You will continue to be insured.

Remember it is just one stupid word so don’t be bulldozed by smart-assed Republicans gloating over the “rule of law” .,… (They don’t honor rule of law when it applies to one of their favored corporations….) It can easily be changed… but it must require people sympathetic to Obamacare for it to get passed….. Only Democrats can guarantee you your insurance will continue… Only Democrats.

You must, must make your vote count this November; you must make your friends, neighbors, church goers go to the polls in your behalf; unfriend them if necessary, bitches….. Your entire future depends on this one vote… Seriously, you could be dead next year thanks to your … Republican friends….