• Home
  • About Us
  • Getting Finances Done
    • Hiring Advisors
    • Debt Management
    • Spending Plan
  • Insurance
    • Life Insurance
    • Health Insurance
    • Disability Insurance
    • Homeowners/Renters Insurance
  • Contact Us
  • Our Editorial Commitment

The Free Financial Advisor

You are here: Home / Archives for broker-dealers

SEC Approves FINRA Change to Streamline How Investment Advisers Allocate Bulk Trades

September 8, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

FINRA bulk trade allocation rule
The SEC has approved a FINRA rule change giving broker-dealers more flexibility when processing allocations from investment advisers that place bulk trades for multiple client accounts. Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock

Investment advisers sometimes place a single large securities order for multiple clients and then allocate portions of that trade among the individual accounts they manage. A newly approved FINRA rule change is intended to make that behind-the-scenes process more efficient without eliminating safeguards designed to prevent advisers from deciding who receives favorable trades after seeing how those trades performed.

The Securities and Exchange Commission approved the change to FINRA Rule 4515.01 on September 2, 2026. The approval was published in the Federal Register on September 8. Although the rule is primarily operational and will be most noticeable to broker-dealers and investment advisers, it involves a process that ultimately determines how trades are assigned to individual investors’ accounts.

What Is a Bulk Investment Adviser Order?

An investment adviser managing numerous client portfolios may determine that the same stock, bond or other security should be bought or sold for multiple accounts. Rather than sending a completely separate market order for every client, the adviser can place a larger—or “bulk”—order covering multiple accounts and subsequently provide instructions allocating portions of that trade among the participating clients.

FINRA Rule 4515 addresses recordkeeping and account-designation requirements associated with that process. The rule includes safeguards intended to prevent allocation practices that could disadvantage certain clients.

For investors, one particularly important principle is that an adviser shouldn’t be able to wait and see whether a trade rises or falls and then give the more favorable result to preferred accounts.

FINRA Is Removing a Trade-Date Deadline

Under the previous version of FINRA Rule 4515.01, broker-dealers could use an exception from certain principal-approval requirements for investment adviser bulk orders when allocation instructions were received no later than the end of the trade date. The newly approved amendment eliminates that timing requirement.

The exception will instead apply to allocations of qualifying investment adviser bulk orders regardless of when the broker-dealer receives the allocation instructions.

FINRA argued that the previous deadline could create unnecessary operational problems, particularly when investment advisers were unable to deliver final allocations before the end of the trading day. The SEC agreed that eliminating the timing condition could reduce operational burdens, help firms process allocations more efficiently and reduce potential settlement risks.

The Change Doesn’t Let Advisers Assign Winners After the Fact

Removing the trade-date condition doesn’t eliminate the investor-protection requirements surrounding bulk allocations. FINRA members still cannot knowingly facilitate an allocation that violates the investment adviser’s stated intent at the time the order was executed or breaches the adviser’s fiduciary duty to participating accounts. That includes allocations based on how a trade performs between execution and the time the accounts are assigned.

Imagine, for example, that an adviser places a bulk purchase for several client accounts and the security’s price jumps shortly afterward. The rule change isn’t intended to allow the adviser to wait for that price movement and then direct more of the profitable trade to favored clients.

The SEC specifically cited the continued existence of those protections when approving the amendment.

Why FINRA Wanted the Rule Changed

FINRA filed the proposed amendment with the SEC on July 9, 2026, and the Commission published notice of the proposal later that month. According to the regulatory filing, changes in trade settlement and industry operations can make timely and accurate allocation processing increasingly important. Requiring principal approval simply because instructions arrived after the end of the trade date could introduce additional steps and potentially delay processing.

The amendment also applies to qualifying delivery-versus-payment and receive-versus-payment arrangements and to prime brokers receiving allocation instructions directly from investment advisers. The SEC received no public comments on the proposed change before approving it.

The Commission concluded that the amendment was consistent with requirements of the Securities Exchange Act governing FINRA rules, including provisions intended to protect investors, prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices and remove unnecessary impediments to efficient markets.

What Does This Mean for Individual Investors?

Most people with brokerage or professionally managed investment accounts won’t need to take any action because of the rule change. The amendment primarily changes an operational requirement for FINRA-member broker-dealers handling bulk orders placed by investment advisers. It doesn’t change an investor’s account ownership, give advisers permission to ignore their fiduciary duties or eliminate protections against allocating trades based on their subsequent performance.

Individual investors may never see the allocation process at all, even though it can determine how a larger transaction ultimately appears in their accounts. For clients of investment advisers, the broader principle remains important: advisers handling aggregated trades should have policies designed to allocate investments fairly rather than favoring particular clients after the outcome of a trade becomes known.

The SEC’s September approval changes when a broker-dealer must obtain principal approval in the allocation process, but it does not remove that fundamental investor-protection principle.

What to Read Next

You’re 60 With $1 Million Saved — What Are the Next Five Financial Decisions?

7 Financial Decisions That Deserve a Second Opinion Before You Say Yes

USDA Is Moving SNAP and Nutrition Program Offices Out of Washington — What Benefit Recipients Should Know

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: broker-dealers, bulk trades, financial advisors, FINRA, investing, investment accounts, investment advisers, investor protection, SEC, Securities Regulation

SEC Proposes Rule on Electronic Delivery of Information Under Federal Securities Laws

July 21, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

SEC electronic delivery rule
An investor reviews financial documents on a laptop as the SEC proposes new rules that could make electronic delivery the default for many required securities disclosures. Tada Images/Shutterstock

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has published a proposed rule, “Electronic Delivery of Information Under the Federal Securities Laws,” that could modernize how investors receive required disclosures and other securities-related documents. According to the proposal, the SEC would allow many firms to use electronic delivery as the default method for providing required information, replacing the current system that often requires investors to opt in before receiving documents digitally. The proposal was published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2026, and the public comment period remains open through September 21, 2026.

What the Proposal Would Change

If adopted, the rule would apply to a wide range of market participants, including public companies, broker-dealers, investment advisers, investment companies, and transfer agents. Instead of relying primarily on paper mailings, firms could satisfy many federal securities law delivery requirements by making documents available electronically and notifying investors how to access them. Investors who still prefer paper copies would generally be able to request them. The SEC says the proposal is intended to reflect how most people already access financial information while reducing printing and mailing costs.

Why Investors Should Pay Attention

For most investors, the proposal would not change the information they receive but rather how they receive it. Required documents such as prospectuses, proxy materials, account information, and other disclosures could become more readily available through secure electronic methods. The SEC believes electronic delivery may improve accessibility while maintaining investor protections, but the agency is seeking public feedback before making any final decision.

Public Comment Period Remains Open

The proposal is not yet final and could be revised before adoption. Individuals, businesses, and other interested parties have until September 21, 2026, to submit comments through the SEC and the Federal Register process. Anyone affected by potential changes to securities disclosure requirements should review the full proposal and consider whether the changes could impact how they receive or provide investment-related information.

What to Read Next

SEC Approves ICE Clear Credit Rule Change on Operational Risk Management Framework

New York AG Charges Long Island Man With Fraudulently Collecting Over $100,000 in Social Security Disability Benefits

RentGrow to Pay $2.25 Million to Settle FTC Allegations of Fair Credit Reporting Act and FTC Act Violations

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: broker-dealers, electronic delivery, Federal Register, federal securities laws, finance news, financial regulation, investing, investment advisers, investor disclosures, public comment period, Regulations.gov, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, securities compliance

SEC Grants CME Conditional Exemption for Certain Cash-Settled Security Futures

July 16, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

SEC CME exemption
The SEC has granted the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) a conditional exemption from certain opening price settlement requirements for select cash-settled security futures contracts, marking a targeted regulatory change that affects how those products may be settled under specific conditions. Mark Van Scyoc/Shutterstock

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has issued an official order granting the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (CME) conditional exemptive relief from specific settlement requirements that apply to certain cash-settled security futures contracts, according to an official announcement published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2026.

The order, identified as Release No. 34-105882 and published at 91 FR 43410, was issued under Section 36 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 6h-1(d) thereunder. It exempts CME, on a conditional basis, from the opening price settlement requirements set out in Rule 6h-1(b) of the Exchange Act for the specific category of cash-settled security futures covered by the relief.

The action follows a formal application process. According to the Federal Register filing, CME submitted an application for the exemption in February 2026, and the SEC published a notice of that application along with a request for public comment at that time. The July 2026 order represents the SEC’s final determination granting the requested relief, subject to conditions.

Rule 6h-1 generally governs how certain security futures products must be settled, including requirements tied to opening prices. The conditional exemption means CME is not required to comply with those particular opening price settlement rules for the covered contracts, provided it meets whatever conditions the SEC has attached to the relief. The full text of those conditions spans five pages in the official Federal Register document.

The order is categorized as a Notice by the SEC and carries docket file number S7-2026-04. It applies specifically to CME and to the cash-settled security futures contracts identified within the order, rather than to the broader futures or securities markets.

For market participants, broker-dealers, or investors involved in security futures products traded on CME, this regulatory change may affect how certain contracts are settled. Those with questions about how this exemption applies to their specific situation should consult the official Federal Register document or contact the SEC directly, as the full conditions and scope of the relief are detailed in the official filing. Readers are encouraged to verify any specifics relevant to their circumstances with the SEC or a qualified financial or legal professional.

What to Read Next

New York AG Charges Long Island Man With Fraudulently Collecting Over $100,000 in Social Security Disability Benefits

Hospital Service Costs Rose in May CPI—A Retirement Healthcare Planning Reminder

RentGrow to Pay $2.25 Million to Settle FTC Allegations of Fair Credit Reporting Act and FTC Act Violations

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: broker-dealers, cash-settled security futures, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CME, derivatives, Exchange Act, Federal Register, financial regulation, futures trading, investing news, Rule 6h-1, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, security futures, settlement rules

7 Broker-Dealer Strategies That Benefit Them, Not You

August 23, 2025 by Travis Campbell Leave a Comment

finance
Image source: pexels.com

Choosing a financial advisor is a big decision, especially when your savings are on the line. Many investors trust broker-dealers to guide them, but not every strategy they use is in your best interest. Some broker-dealer strategies are designed to maximize their profits, not yours. Knowing these tactics can help you protect your investments and make smarter decisions. In this article, we’ll break down seven broker-dealer strategies that often benefit them more than you, so you can spot them early and take control of your financial future.

1. Churning Your Account

Churning happens when a broker makes excessive trades in your account just to earn more commissions. These frequent buy and sell transactions might look like active management, but they rarely improve your returns. Instead, you end up paying more in fees and taxes, while the broker-dealer pockets the commission. If you notice a lot of trades that don’t match your investment goals, ask your broker for an explanation. Remember, steady growth usually beats constant trading in the long run.

2. Pushing Proprietary Products

Some broker-dealers encourage their advisors to sell in-house or proprietary products. These might include mutual funds or insurance policies created by their own firm. The problem? These products often come with higher fees and may not be the best fit for your needs. Broker-dealers earn more when you buy their products, so their advice may not be as objective as you think. Always ask if a product is proprietary and compare it to alternatives before investing.

3. Hidden Fees and Complex Pricing

Broker-dealer strategies often involve complicated fee structures that make it hard for you to know what you’re paying. You might see charges for account maintenance, trade execution, or even inactivity. Some fees are buried deep in the fine print. Over time, these costs add up and eat into your returns. Before opening an account, request a full list of all fees and ask questions if anything is unclear. Transparency is key to protecting your investments.

4. Revenue Sharing Arrangements

Revenue sharing is a common broker-dealer strategy that benefits them, not you. In these arrangements, brokers receive payments from third-party companies for recommending certain funds or products. This creates a conflict of interest. Your broker might push investments that pay them more, even if better options exist elsewhere. To avoid this, look for advisors who are transparent about how they’re compensated.

5. Selling High-Commission Products

Some investments, such as variable annuities or non-traded REITs, pay hefty commissions to broker-dealers. These products can be complex and expensive, with lots of hidden fees. Brokers may recommend them because of the high payout, not because they’re right for you. If you’re offered a product you don’t understand, ask for a full explanation of the costs and risks. Don’t be afraid to seek a second opinion or do your own research.

6. Inadequate Disclosure of Conflicts

Broker-dealer strategies sometimes involve downplaying or failing to disclose conflicts of interest. For example, a broker might not clearly state how they’re paid or if they have incentives to recommend certain products. This lack of transparency can leave you in the dark about why specific advice is given. Always request written disclosure of any potential conflicts and compensation structures. Being informed helps you make better choices for your portfolio.

7. Steering Clients to Fee-Based Accounts

Many broker-dealers promote fee-based accounts, which charge a percentage of your assets each year, regardless of how much trading occurs. While this can align interests in some cases, it’s not always the best choice. For investors who trade infrequently, these accounts can cost more over time than paying per transaction. This broker-dealer strategy benefits them by providing steady income, even if your account sits idle. Evaluate your own trading habits before agreeing to a fee structure.

Taking Control of Your Broker-Dealer Relationship

Understanding broker-dealer strategies is essential if you want to keep more of your hard-earned money. Broker-dealers may use tactics that boost their bottom line at your expense, but you don’t have to let them. Ask tough questions, demand transparency, and never hesitate to compare products or advisors. The more you know, the better equipped you’ll be to protect your interests.

If you’re unsure about your current broker-dealer relationship, consider checking their background using FINRA’s BrokerCheck tool. Remember, your financial future is too important to leave in someone else’s hands without oversight.

Have you ever encountered broker-dealer strategies that put their interests above yours? Share your experience or questions in the comments below!

Read More

6 Reasons Your Financial Advisor May Not Be Acting in Your Best Interest

7 Financial Loopholes That Lenders Exploit Behind the Scenes

Travis Campbell
Travis Campbell

Travis Campbell is a digital marketer/developer with over 10 years of experience and a writer for over 6 years. He holds a degree in E-commerce and likes to share life advice he’s learned over the years. Travis loves spending time on the golf course or at the gym when he’s not working.

Filed Under: Finance Tagged With: broker-dealers, conflicts of interest, financial advisors, investing, investment advice, investment fees, Personal Finance

Follow Us

Search this site:

Recent Posts

  • Can My Savings Account Affect My Financial Aid? by Tamila McDonald
  • 12 Ways Gen X’s Views Clash with Millennials… by Tamila McDonald
  • What Advantages and Disadvantages Are There To… by Jacob Sensiba
  • 10 Tactics for Building an Emergency Fund from Scratch by Vanessa Bermudez
  • Call 911: Go To the Emergency Room Immediately If… by Stephen Kanaval
  • 7 Weird Things You Can Sell Online by Tamila McDonald
  • 10 Scary Facts About DriveTime by Tamila McDonald

Copyright © 2026 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework