11-24-14 09:40 PM
63 123
tools
  1. crazigee's Avatar
    I don't expect a reasonable response from the BlackBerry "can't do anything right " crowd who spend an inordinate about of time here when clearly they are not fans. Therock your points are bang on

    Posted via CB10
    As opposed to all of the BlackBerry "is perfection and can't do anything wrong" crowd?

    So because I'm not in the group that doesn't only say BlackBerry is perfect I'm clearly not a fan?

    Posted using my Z10 via CB10
    crackberry_geek likes this.
    11-19-14 11:38 PM
  2. Thunderbuck's Avatar
    It is called look at the source.... Faccette has had it in for BB the last number of years dating back to his Pacific Crest days.... just look at the doozies that came out of there.... In the end non of this matters in the long run.. sure it affects the stock... but if you believe in BB it can be an opportunity... in the end all that matters are the quarterly reports... only thing in the long run that matters.....
    Ahhhh, Pacific Crest! I knew I'd seen Fawcette's name somewhere. Had no idea he'd moved to Morgan Stanley. Explains a lot.
    La Emperor likes this.
    11-20-14 01:39 AM
  3. Shanerredflag's Avatar
    Something to keep in mind:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-are-...e-stock-gurus/

    This is just one of many many articles from one of many research papers...Faucette is a paid FUD spreader, that's his thing.


    Passport'n stuff all day long.
    Last edited by Shanerredflag; 11-20-14 at 06:29 AM.
    11-20-14 06:15 AM
  4. DaSchwantz's Avatar
    If you're from the US, press your politicians to go after Wall Street criminality rather than be corrupted by it.

    Oh and the best Fact Check for Chen is to just kill his own projections, and then rub it in MS nose after the fact. And take all your future business elsewhere, forever.

    Posted via CB10
    11-20-14 07:55 AM
  5. anon1727506's Avatar
    Fact... Chen needs to worry about Main Street (or Industrial Ave and Enterprise Drive) what analyst say can hurt the stock and in some ways the company. But putting out a good product that does what the user expects at a competitive price is what will make or break the company.
    Shanerredflag likes this.
    11-20-14 08:39 AM
  6. woofster's Avatar
    It's interesting to note that Deutsche Bank, along with Morgan Stanley, were lead managers of MOBL's IPO. I'm not alluding to anything but rather just wanted to point out this coincidence.

    MobileIron prices IPO at $9.00, within the range - NASDAQ.com
    11-20-14 09:46 AM
  7. bspence87's Avatar
    It's interesting to note that Deutsche Bank, along with Morgan Stanley, were lead managers of MOBL's IPO. I'm not alluding to anything but rather just wanted to point out this coincidence.

    MobileIron prices IPO at $9.00, within the range - NASDAQ.com
    Both banks waited until the first day of BlackBerry's quiet period (within 30 days of ER) to release their reports... 2 months after the last earnings call.

    One of the two also states in their analysis that they "don't like the design of the Passport" and therefore it won't sell. You can pick them apart for days but in the end, the SEC is nowhere to be found.

    Posted via CB10
    11-20-14 10:56 AM
  8. LoneStarRed's Avatar
    Sure there are a few strategies, if you're in a position like that.

    Trash-talk a stock to get in cheap....

    That way you can profit long and sell shorts to the poor shorties...

    :-)

    Zzzzwiped from a Zedevice....
    Suckers waiting to be had.

    " I do not think that word means what you think it means. "
    11-20-14 11:24 AM
  9. early2bed's Avatar
    You guys do know how big these investment banks are and how many clients they must have, right? Morgan Stanley's revenue last year was $36 billion dollars. Investors who don't have an axe to grind place a lot of stock in the opinions of these kinds of analysts expressly because they have tons of clients. If they are doing something improper then you can be sure that you are going to have to work a lot harder to dig it up than to look to see if they are somehow invested in the competition.

    It's amazing that some of you guys would rather believe that the entire financial system is hopelessly corrupt than to believe that an analyst could objectively downgrade Blackberry. If you are correct then forget about Blackberry. You've uncovered the key to limitless wealth based on your ability to see through the analyst's biases.
    sentimentGX4, m1a1mg and dolco like this.
    11-20-14 11:45 AM
  10. bspence87's Avatar
    You guys do know how big these investment banks are and how many clients they must have, right? Morgan Stanley's revenue last year was $36 billion dollars. Investors who don't have an axe to grind place a lot of stock in the opinions of these kinds of analysts expressly because they have tons of clients. If they are doing something improper then you can be sure that you are going to have to work a lot harder to dig it up than to look to see if they are somehow invested in the competition.

    It's amazing that some of you guys would rather believe that the entire financial system is hopelessly corrupt than to believe that an analyst could objectively downgrade Blackberry. If you are correct then forget about Blackberry. You've uncovered the key to limitless wealth based on your ability to see through the analyst's biases.
    It's more the timing then the downgrade itself. Right on the heels of a rally.
    And the reasoning. "We think Chen is wrong with his estimates. We think everything is going to go to ****. They're falling behind in every business"
    Not to mention Faucette has been trying to shut down every one of BlackBerry's ideas for the last three years and has been completely wrong since Chen took over.

    If you believe there is no corruption on Wall Street, then....

    Posted via CB10
    Thunderbuck likes this.
    11-20-14 12:12 PM
  11. LoneStarRed's Avatar
    You guys do know how big these investment banks are and how many clients they must have, right? Morgan Stanley's revenue last year was $36 billion dollars. Investors who don't have an axe to grind place a lot of stock in the opinions of these kinds of analysts expressly because they have tons of clients. If they are doing something improper then you can be sure that you are going to have to work a lot harder to dig it up than to look to see if they are somehow invested in the competition.

    It's amazing that some of you guys would rather believe that the entire financial system is hopelessly corrupt than to believe that an analyst could objectively downgrade Blackberry. If you are correct then forget about Blackberry. You've uncovered the key to limitless wealth based on your ability to see through the analyst's biases.
    Don't be so naive! As you said, this 36 billion dollar entity is immense and decentralized. It has many different enterprises under that one umbrella and they are all focused on the bottom line.

    They underwrote the IPO to make money. Now the investment is threatened. They are not married to it. They just want to offload it firstly at a profit and secondly without a loss. The executive who is heading that particular division DOES NOT want a loss like that on the annual report attributable to him (bonuses can take a big hit, performance reviews, etc) .

    So as BlackBerry continues to look healthier and healthier, that investment starts to look less and less secure. What can they do to help themselves ? Well they have some options, so to speak. And they will not hesitate to use them to shore up their interest in the long term or make dumping it less painful in the short term. So, if a certain analyst is of a particular viewpoint that helps your interest and just so happens to hurt your competition that is "coincidence " and "impartial perspective " not manipulation.

    As Sherlock Holmes commonly says "the game is afoot". And if you know the players and which part you play then tally ho. If not.......

    Chen is a big boy and he knows how the game is played. BlackBerry is in good hands.

    " I do not think that word means what you think it means. "
    11-20-14 12:25 PM
  12. early2bed's Avatar
    It's more the timing then the downgrade itself. Right on the heels of a rally.
    When a stock has rallied based on CEO's guidance then it's perfectly reasonable and expected that some analyst will question the CEO's assumptions. I'd say that's a big part of an analysts job, questioning the assumptions of management for the benefit of investors. I believe they should be able to do so without being smeared on public forums.
    11-20-14 12:38 PM
  13. kfh227's Avatar
    Do you really think that institutional investors are going to pay much attention to a CEO who is overtly trying to increase share price? There simply is no upside to doing so. For one thing, the downgrades come from some of the largest investment banks with pretty solid analysts and a tremendous stake in their reputation. One might suspect that an analyst is biased but the CEO of a company surely is. Finally, anything that a CEO says that directly increases the stock price is ammo for shareholder lawsuits in the future. That's why they don't do it.
    That's why they do it covertly using several layers of obfuscation.

    Posted via CB10
    11-20-14 12:39 PM
  14. early2bed's Avatar
    The investment community is fully aware of potential bias on both sides. That's why BBRY has only gone down to $10 vs the Morgan Stanley target price of $7.
    11-20-14 12:55 PM
  15. dusdal's Avatar
    The investment community is fully aware of potential bias on both sides. That's why BBRY has only gone down to $10 vs the Morgan Stanley target price of $7.
    I doubt that.

    Outside of these forums I haven't seen any mention of this potential conflict of interest mentioned.

    I've only seen that MS downgraded them to well below their current SP.

    Posted via CB10
    11-20-14 01:06 PM
  16. early2bed's Avatar
    1. A negative analyst report and downgrade of BBRY


    Outside of these forums I haven't seen any mention of this potential conflict of interest mentioned.
    I can think of only two possible reasons for this:
    1. Only the Crackberry Forum investment community has unearthed this conflict of interest which questions the integrity of one of the largest investment banks in the world.
    2. There is no investor-relevant conflict of interest.

    Is there any other possibility? Media coverup? Are the major financial news outlets tied to Morgan Stanley in some way?

    Or is this a more likely scenario: A major negative analyst report and downgrade of BBRY; Crackberry forum members become irritated at the share price decline and hit Google to discredit the analyst; They find a potential conflict of interest and start a thread; The information has no relevance.
    dolco and anon1091977 like this.
    11-20-14 01:14 PM
  17. newcollector's Avatar
    The stock market is not known for being rational or logical. The stock market is known to be highly emotional. With Morgan Stanley's track record of misinformation and willingness to be fined for improper activities, It amazes me that people still entrust their resources to them. There is an appalling lack of consistent news media coverage in this kind of corruption because it is so far removed from the common man. Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley are trying to protect their interests in Mobil Iron so they do have a bias. Chen has a bias as well. Guess what, so far, Chen has been spot on with his projections. He also has no controversy surrounding his activities while the same cannot be said for Morgan Stanley. The truth of the matter is this: the proof is in the pudding. Only one of these parties can be right. Time will tell.

    Let us make this wager, early2bed. If Chen is proved correct, you get to eat your words without salt. If Morgan Stanley is correct, then I will come on this forum and type in bold letters, "EARLY2BED IS RIGHT AND I AM NOT ONLY WRONG, BUT I AM A BLATHERING IGNORAMUS!!" In my humble opinion, I do not have anything to worry about.
    Shanerredflag likes this.
    11-20-14 02:14 PM
  18. dusdal's Avatar
    I don't think it's so far fetched that it shouldn't be taken into consideration.

    There is a long precedence of conflict of interest in the financial community in the U.S.

    I also don't think it should be odd to expect that MS would include their involvement with MOBL in a disclosure with their analyst report.


    Posted via CB10
    LoneStarRed and spike12 like this.
    11-20-14 02:17 PM
  19. early2bed's Avatar
    Let us make this wager, early2bed. If Chen is proved correct, you get to eat your words without salt. If Morgan Stanley is correct, then I will come on this forum and type in bold letters, "EARLY2BED IS RIGHT AND I AM NOT ONLY WRONG, BUT I AM A BLATHERING IGNORAMUS!!" In my humble opinion, I do not have anything to worry about.
    Unlike you, I don't have any idea what the share price of BBRY will be in the future. All I do know is that, right now, it's worth about $10 per share.
    dolco likes this.
    11-20-14 02:56 PM
  20. HighFlight88's Avatar
    MS reads like a criminal organization to me, with a pattern of shady dealings continuing to the present day, but what do I know. You don't think history might have repeated itself with the latest downgrade, do you? They wouldn't possibly try it 'one more time' with the feds looking over their shoulder, would they? ;-)

    If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

    Morgan Stanley, oh yeah, they are the company that would never mislead people about investing or give misleading research...
    In 2003, Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $125 million in order to settle its portion of a $1.4 billion settlement brought by Eliot Spitzer, the Attorney General of New York, the National Association of Securities Dealers (now the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)), the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, (SEC) and a number of state securities regulators, relating to intentionally misleading research motivated by a desire to win investment banking business with the companies covered.[44]

    2004
    In June 2004, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) imposed a penalty of a censure and $140,000 fine for incorrectly using customers margined securities as collateral for cash management loans.[45]

    Morgan Stanley settled a sex discrimination suit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for $54*million on July 12, 2004.[46] In 2007, the firm agreed to pay $46 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought by eight female brokers.[47]

    In July 2004, the firm paid NASD a $2.2 million fine for more than 1,800 late disclosures of reportable information about its brokers.[48]

    In September 2004, the firm paid a $19 million fine imposed by NYSE for failure to deliver prospectuses to customers in registered offerings, inaccurate reporting of certain program trading information, short sale violations, failures to fingerprint new employees and failure to timely file exchange forms.[49]

    In December 2004, the firm paid a $100,000 to NASD and paid $211,510 in restitution to customers for failure to make proper disclosures to municipal bond investors. In the course of NASD's investigation, Morgan Stanley' failure make a timely response to requests for information resulted in censure and an additional $25,000 fine.[50]

    2005
    The New York Stock Exchange imposed a $19*million fine on January 12, 2005 for alleged regulatory and supervisory lapses. At the time, it was the largest fine ever imposed by the New York Stock Exchange[51]

    On May 16, 2005, a Florida jury found that Morgan Stanley failed to give adequate information to Ronald Perelman about Sunbeam thereby defrauding him and causing damages to him of $604*million. In addition, punitive damages were added for total damages of $1.450*billion. This verdict was directed by the judge as a sanction against Morgan Stanley after the firm's attorneys infuriated the court by failing and refusing to produce documents, and falsely telling the court that certain documents did not exist.[citation needed] The ruling was overturned on March 21, 2007 and Morgan Stanley was no longer required to pay the $1.57*billion verdict.[52]

    2006
    Morgan Stanley settled a class action lawsuit on March 2, 2006. It had been filed in California by both current and former Morgan Stanley employees for unfair labor practices instituted to those in the financial advisor training program. Employees of the program had claimed the firm expected trainees to clock overtime hours without additional pay and handle various administrative expenses as a result of their expected duties. A $42.5*million settlement was reached and Morgan Stanley admitted no fault.[53]

    In May the firm agreed to pay a $15 million fine. The Securities and Exchange Commission accused the firm of deleting emails and failing to cooperate with SEC investigators.[54]

    On September 25, 2009, Citigroup Inc. filed a federal lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, claiming its rival failed to pay $245*million due under a credit default swap agreement. The breach-of-contract lawsuit was filed in Manhattan federal court and seeks unspecified damages.[55]

    2007
    The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced a $12.5*million settlement with Morgan Stanley on September 27, 2007. This resolved charges that the firm's former affiliate, Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. (MSDW), failed on numerous occasions to provide emails to claimants in arbitration proceedings as well as to regulators. The company had claimed that the destruction of the firm's email servers in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center resulted in the loss of all email before that date. In fact, the firm had millions of earlier emails that had been retrieved from backup copies stored in another location that was not destroyed in the attacks.[56] Customers who had lost their arbitration cases against Morgan Stanley DW Inc. because of their inability to obtain these emails to demonstrate Morgan Stanley's misconduct received a token amount of money as a result of the settlement.

    In July 2007, Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $4.4 million to settle a class-action lawsuit. The firm was accused of incorrectly charging clients for storage of precious metals. [57]

    In August 2007, Morgan Stanley was fined $1.5 million and paid $4.6 million in restitution to customers related to excessive mark-ups in 2,800 transactions. An employee was charged $40,000 and suspended for 15 days.[58]

    2008
    Under a settlement with New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, the firm agreed to repurchase approximately $4.5 billion worth of auction rate securities. The firm was accused of misrepresenting auction rate securities in their sales and marketing.[59]

    2009
    In March 2009, FINRA announced Morgan Stanley was to pay more than $7 million for misconduct in the handling the accounts of 90 Rochester, NY-area retirees. [60]

    In May 2009, a trader at the firm was suspended by the FSA for a series of unauthorized commodities trades entered after becoming intoxicated during a three and half hour lunch.[61] A week later another trader at the firm was banned for deliberately disadvantaging clients by 'pre-hedging' trades without their consent.[62]

    The Financial Services Authority fined the firm 1.4m for failing to use controls properly relating to the actions of a rogue trader on one of its trading desks. Morgan Stanley admitted on June 18, 2008 this resulted in a $120m loss for the firm.[63]

    Morgan Stanley managing director Du Jun was convicted of insider trading after a criminal trial in Hong Kong. Mr. Du was accused of buying 26.7 million shares of Citic Resource Holdings while in possession of confidential information about the company. He gained this information as part of a Morgan Stanley team working with the company on a bond issuance and the purchase of an oil field in Kazakhstan. Morgan Stanley's compliance department was criticized for failing to detect Mr. Du's illegal trades.[64]

    2010
    In April, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced the firm agreed to pay $14 million related to an attempt to hide prohibited trading activity in oil futures.[65]

    2011
    A Morgan Stanley trader was barred from the brokerage industry and fined for entering fake trades to fool firm risk management systems causing millions in losses.[66]

    The Department of Justice sought a $4.8 million fine from Morgan Stanley for its part in an electricity price-fixing scandal. Con Edison estimated that the crime cost New York state consumers about $300 million. Morgan Stanley earned revenues of $21.6 million from the fraud.[67]

    2012
    On April 3, the Federal Reserve announced Consent Order against the firm "a pattern of misconduct and negligence in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing." The consent order requires the firm to review foreclosure proceedings conducted by the firm. The firm will also be responsible for monetary sanctions. [68]

    Garth R. Peterson, one of Morgan Stanleys highest-ranking real estate executives in China pleaded guilty on April 25 to violating U.S. federal anticorruption laws. He was charged with secretly acquiring millions of dollars worth of property investments for himself and a Chinese government official. The official steered business to Morgan Stanley.[69]

    Morgan Stanley was fined $55,000 by Nasdaq OMX for three separate violations of exchange rules. A Morgan Stanley client algorithm started buying and selling enormous volumes by mistake. Furthermore, after the exchange detected the error, they were unable to contact the employee responsible.[70] Morgan Stanley settled a claim from FINRA and paid restitution together totaling almost $2.4 million. Morgan Stanley was accused of improperly supervising and training financial advisors in the use of non-traditional ETF products. This resulted in inappropriate recommendations to several of its retail brokerage customers.[71]

    Morgan Stanley is facing lawsuits and government investigation surrounding the Facebook IPO. It is claimed that Morgan Stanley downgraded their earnings forecasts for the company while conducting the IPO roadshow. Allegedly, they passed this information to only a handful of institutional investors. "The allegations, if true, are a matter of regulatory concern" to FINRA and SEC according to FINRA Chairman Richard Ketchum.[72]

    Morgan Stanley agreed to pay a $5 million fine to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and an addition $1.75 million to CME and the Chicago Board of Trade. Morgan Stanley employees improperly executed fictitious sales in Eurodollar and Treasury Note futures contracts.[73]

    On the 7th of August 2012, it was announced that Morgan Stanley would have to pay $4.8 million in fines in order to settle a price fixing scandal, which has been estimated to have cost New Yorkers $300 million to date. Morgan Stanley has currently made no admission of any wrongdoing; however, the Justice department commented that they hoped this would "send a message to the banking industry".[74]

    2014
    In September 2014, Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $95 million to resolve a lawsuit pursued by the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi (MissPERS) and the West Virginia Investment Management Board. Morgan Stanley was accused of misleading investors in mortgage-backed securities.[75]

    Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk


    Q10 ? The Other Crackberry Pirate ? Z30 | via CB10
    11-20-14 03:59 PM
  21. Shanerredflag's Avatar
    You guys do know how big these investment banks are and how many clients they must have, right? Morgan Stanley's revenue last year was $36 billion dollars. Investors who don't have an axe to grind place a lot of stock in the opinions of these kinds of analysts expressly because they have tons of clients. If they are doing something improper then you can be sure that you are going to have to work a lot harder to dig it up than to look to see if they are somehow invested in the competition.

    It's amazing that some of you guys would rather believe that the entire financial system is hopelessly corrupt than to believe that an analyst could objectively downgrade Blackberry. If you are correct then forget about Blackberry. You've uncovered the key to limitless wealth based on your ability to see through the analyst's biases.
    Sorry if already stated but...agenda, conflict of interest and a long long list of WRONG investment notes are just the tip of the iceberg with Mr FAUCETTE. Nothing that man does is hap hazard or objective.

    Passport'n stuff all day long.
    11-20-14 05:18 PM
  22. world traveler and former ceo's Avatar
    1. A negative analyst report and downgrade of BBRY




    I can think of only two possible reasons for this:
    1. Only the Crackberry Forum investment community has unearthed this conflict of interest which questions the integrity of one of the largest investment banks in the world.
    2. There is no investor-relevant conflict of interest.

    Is there any other possibility? Media coverup? Are the major financial news outlets tied to Morgan Stanley in some way?

    Or is this a more likely scenario: A major negative analyst report and downgrade of BBRY; Crackberry forum members become irritated at the share price decline and hit Google to discredit the analyst; They find a potential conflict of interest and start a thread; The information has no relevance.
    "No investor conflict of interest". Really?

    Ok if that is so let him state for the record:

    " neither I nor our firm has an investment position in bbry. Our firm is not selling short bbry at this time, nor do we own shares in their competitor xxx".

    Full disclosure ---> I am fine with fine with either positive or negative analysis as long as full disclosure also clearly stated ... otherwise "analysis" ---> hidden agenda....



    Posted via CB10
    Shanerredflag likes this.
    11-20-14 09:23 PM
  23. app_Developer's Avatar
    Maybe we can discuss the actual substance of the report?

    Doesn't it seem just a little optimistic to think that software revenue is going to grow quickly enough next year to actually offset the loss of service revenue?

    I know Chen had a reputation at Sybase for exceeding expectations. So I suppose you could bet on him as a person. But I don't know that Sybase was really as damaged as BB is.

    The stock has returned now to $10. Isn't that about where it was a couple of weeks ago before it was driven up by rumors?


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by app_Developer; 11-20-14 at 10:04 PM.
    m1a1mg and anon1091977 like this.
    11-20-14 09:45 PM
  24. notafanofyou's Avatar
    "No investor conflict of interest". Really?

    Ok if that is so let him state for the record:

    " neither I nor our firm has an investment position in bbry. Our firm is not selling short bbry at this time, nor do we own shares in their competitor xxx".

    Full disclosure ---> I am fine with fine with either positive or negative analysis as long as full disclosure also clearly stated ... otherwise "analysis" ---> hidden agenda....



    Posted via CB10
    The BlackBerry "can't doing nothing right" crowd refuses to acknowledge the bias and proven record of MS. They seem to have an agenda. Why else spend inordinate amounts of time posting on a fan site which you clearly hate?

    Posted via CB10
    Last edited by notafanofyou; 11-20-14 at 10:18 PM.
    11-20-14 10:02 PM
  25. notafanofyou's Avatar
    Morgan Stanley, oh yeah, they are the company that would never mislead people about investing or give misleading research...
    In 2003, Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $125 million in order to settle its portion of a $1.4 billion settlement brought by Eliot Spitzer, the Attorney General of New York, the National Association of Securities Dealers (now the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)), the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, (SEC) and a number of state securities regulators, relating to intentionally misleading research motivated by a desire to win investment banking business with the companies covered.[44]

    2004
    In June 2004, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) imposed a penalty of a censure and $140,000 fine for incorrectly using customers margined securities as collateral for cash management loans.[45]

    Morgan Stanley settled a sex discrimination suit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for $54*million on July 12, 2004.[46] In 2007, the firm agreed to pay $46 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought by eight female brokers.[47]

    In July 2004, the firm paid NASD a $2.2 million fine for more than 1,800 late disclosures of reportable information about its brokers.[48]

    In September 2004, the firm paid a $19 million fine imposed by NYSE for failure to deliver prospectuses to customers in registered offerings, inaccurate reporting of certain program trading information, short sale violations, failures to fingerprint new employees and failure to timely file exchange forms.[49]

    In December 2004, the firm paid a $100,000 to NASD and paid $211,510 in restitution to customers for failure to make proper disclosures to municipal bond investors. In the course of NASD's investigation, Morgan Stanley' failure make a timely response to requests for information resulted in censure and an additional $25,000 fine.[50]

    2005
    The New York Stock Exchange imposed a $19*million fine on January 12, 2005 for alleged regulatory and supervisory lapses. At the time, it was the largest fine ever imposed by the New York Stock Exchange[51]

    On May 16, 2005, a Florida jury found that Morgan Stanley failed to give adequate information to Ronald Perelman about Sunbeam thereby defrauding him and causing damages to him of $604*million. In addition, punitive damages were added for total damages of $1.450*billion. This verdict was directed by the judge as a sanction against Morgan Stanley after the firm's attorneys infuriated the court by failing and refusing to produce documents, and falsely telling the court that certain documents did not exist.[citation needed] The ruling was overturned on March 21, 2007 and Morgan Stanley was no longer required to pay the $1.57*billion verdict.[52]

    2006
    Morgan Stanley settled a class action lawsuit on March 2, 2006. It had been filed in California by both current and former Morgan Stanley employees for unfair labor practices instituted to those in the financial advisor training program. Employees of the program had claimed the firm expected trainees to clock overtime hours without additional pay and handle various administrative expenses as a result of their expected duties. A $42.5*million settlement was reached and Morgan Stanley admitted no fault.[53]

    In May the firm agreed to pay a $15 million fine. The Securities and Exchange Commission accused the firm of deleting emails and failing to cooperate with SEC investigators.[54]

    On September 25, 2009, Citigroup Inc. filed a federal lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, claiming its rival failed to pay $245*million due under a credit default swap agreement. The breach-of-contract lawsuit was filed in Manhattan federal court and seeks unspecified damages.[55]

    2007
    The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced a $12.5*million settlement with Morgan Stanley on September 27, 2007. This resolved charges that the firm's former affiliate, Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. (MSDW), failed on numerous occasions to provide emails to claimants in arbitration proceedings as well as to regulators. The company had claimed that the destruction of the firm's email servers in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center resulted in the loss of all email before that date. In fact, the firm had millions of earlier emails that had been retrieved from backup copies stored in another location that was not destroyed in the attacks.[56] Customers who had lost their arbitration cases against Morgan Stanley DW Inc. because of their inability to obtain these emails to demonstrate Morgan Stanley's misconduct received a token amount of money as a result of the settlement.

    In July 2007, Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $4.4 million to settle a class-action lawsuit. The firm was accused of incorrectly charging clients for storage of precious metals. [57]

    In August 2007, Morgan Stanley was fined $1.5 million and paid $4.6 million in restitution to customers related to excessive mark-ups in 2,800 transactions. An employee was charged $40,000 and suspended for 15 days.[58]

    2008
    Under a settlement with New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, the firm agreed to repurchase approximately $4.5 billion worth of auction rate securities. The firm was accused of misrepresenting auction rate securities in their sales and marketing.[59]

    2009
    In March 2009, FINRA announced Morgan Stanley was to pay more than $7 million for misconduct in the handling the accounts of 90 Rochester, NY-area retirees. [60]

    In May 2009, a trader at the firm was suspended by the FSA for a series of unauthorized commodities trades entered after becoming intoxicated during a three and half hour lunch.[61] A week later another trader at the firm was banned for deliberately disadvantaging clients by 'pre-hedging' trades without their consent.[62]

    The Financial Services Authority fined the firm 1.4m for failing to use controls properly relating to the actions of a rogue trader on one of its trading desks. Morgan Stanley admitted on June 18, 2008 this resulted in a $120m loss for the firm.[63]

    Morgan Stanley managing director Du Jun was convicted of insider trading after a criminal trial in Hong Kong. Mr. Du was accused of buying 26.7 million shares of Citic Resource Holdings while in possession of confidential information about the company. He gained this information as part of a Morgan Stanley team working with the company on a bond issuance and the purchase of an oil field in Kazakhstan. Morgan Stanley's compliance department was criticized for failing to detect Mr. Du's illegal trades.[64]

    2010
    In April, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced the firm agreed to pay $14 million related to an attempt to hide prohibited trading activity in oil futures.[65]

    2011
    A Morgan Stanley trader was barred from the brokerage industry and fined for entering fake trades to fool firm risk management systems causing millions in losses.[66]

    The Department of Justice sought a $4.8 million fine from Morgan Stanley for its part in an electricity price-fixing scandal. Con Edison estimated that the crime cost New York state consumers about $300 million. Morgan Stanley earned revenues of $21.6 million from the fraud.[67]

    2012
    On April 3, the Federal Reserve announced Consent Order against the firm "a pattern of misconduct and negligence in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing." The consent order requires the firm to review foreclosure proceedings conducted by the firm. The firm will also be responsible for monetary sanctions. [68]

    Garth R. Peterson, one of Morgan Stanleys highest-ranking real estate executives in China pleaded guilty on April 25 to violating U.S. federal anticorruption laws. He was charged with secretly acquiring millions of dollars worth of property investments for himself and a Chinese government official. The official steered business to Morgan Stanley.[69]

    Morgan Stanley was fined $55,000 by Nasdaq OMX for three separate violations of exchange rules. A Morgan Stanley client algorithm started buying and selling enormous volumes by mistake. Furthermore, after the exchange detected the error, they were unable to contact the employee responsible.[70] Morgan Stanley settled a claim from FINRA and paid restitution together totaling almost $2.4 million. Morgan Stanley was accused of improperly supervising and training financial advisors in the use of non-traditional ETF products. This resulted in inappropriate recommendations to several of its retail brokerage customers.[71]

    Morgan Stanley is facing lawsuits and government investigation surrounding the Facebook IPO. It is claimed that Morgan Stanley downgraded their earnings forecasts for the company while conducting the IPO roadshow. Allegedly, they passed this information to only a handful of institutional investors. "The allegations, if true, are a matter of regulatory concern" to FINRA and SEC according to FINRA Chairman Richard Ketchum.[72]

    Morgan Stanley agreed to pay a $5 million fine to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and an addition $1.75 million to CME and the Chicago Board of Trade. Morgan Stanley employees improperly executed fictitious sales in Eurodollar and Treasury Note futures contracts.[73]

    On the 7th of August 2012, it was announced that Morgan Stanley would have to pay $4.8 million in fines in order to settle a price fixing scandal, which has been estimated to have cost New Yorkers $300 million to date. Morgan Stanley has currently made no admission of any wrongdoing; however, the Justice department commented that they hoped this would "send a message to the banking industry".[74]

    2014
    In September 2014, Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $95 million to resolve a lawsuit pursued by the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi (MissPERS) and the West Virginia Investment Management Board. Morgan Stanley was accused of misleading investors in mortgage-backed securities.[75]

    Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk
    Wow.... what a stand up company Morgan Stanley. A pillar for society.

    Posted via CB10
    11-20-14 10:09 PM
63 123

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone know which stock chart & trading platforms will work on the passport?
    By Natewantsapassport in forum BlackBerry Passport
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-17-15, 05:50 AM
  2. How do I transfer BBM from 9900 to Moto X?
    By redlightblinking in forum BBM on Android
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-27-14, 02:31 PM
  3. How to download instagram on Q10
    By al2kpe in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-19-14, 09:29 PM
  4. 10.3 update coming to India?
    By abhi116 in forum BlackBerry Z10
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-19-14, 10:56 AM
  5. Can I use the BBM Z10 video to call another network?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-19-14, 08:43 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD