无良推销员收51％佣金，还大爆客户隐私：假结婚，婚外恋，神经病。

真相

无良多伦多共同基金推销员萧红在网上大爆其客户曾女士的隐私，谴责她是通过假结婚到加拿大，婚外恋，最后得了神经病。以后谁还敢从她手里买东西？

真相是萧红的老公唐炜臻以萧红的名义骗曾女士的钱，被萧红单位发现。因为给客户带来重大损失和欺骗行为，萧红受处分，被停牌10年，罚款$75051.50。

以下数字摘自萧红受处分原件：
曾女士给了萧红$50000去投资；
萧红和唐炜臻从这5万加元里榨出来了$25258加元的佣金；
曾女士的5万元跌到了$11000，损失了$39000加元。


萧红受处分的原件在这里：IDA的3315号文件：

Enforcement Counsel BULLETIN #3315
416-943-5891 July 28, 2004

Discipline
Discipline Penalties Imposed on Hong Xiao
– Violations of By-law 29.1
Person
Disciplined
The Ontario District Council has imposed penalties on Hong Xiao, at the relevant time
a Registered Representative at Gorinsen Capital Inc. (subsequently Westminster
Securities Inc., currently Argosy Securities Inc.)
By-laws,
Regulations,
Policies Violated
On July 19, 2004, the Ontario District Council considered, reviewed and accepted a
Settlement Agreement that had been negotiated between Hong Xiao and Association
Staff.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Ms Xiao acknowledged that:
(1) Between February and October 1999 inclusive she engaged in conduct
unbecoming or detrimental to the public interest by churning the account of her
client YZ in that she employed a strategy of excessive trading which she knew
or ought to have known was contrary to, or which was in willful or reckless
disregard of, her client’s best interests and/or instructions, contrary to By-law
29.1; and
(2) In October 1999 she engaged in conduct unbecoming or detrimental to the
public interest by agreeing to compensate her client YZ in an amount equal to
YZ’s initial investment, and by delivering an amount in partial satisfaction of
that agreement, which agreement and payment were made without the
knowledge, consent or authorization of the Respondent’s Member firm,
contrary to By-law 29.1.
Penalty
Assessed
Discipline penalties assessed against Ms Xiao are:
1. For violation (1), a fine in the amount of $35,000
2. For violation (1), disgorgement of commissions in the amount of $5, 051.50
3. For violation (2), a fine in the amount of $10,000;
4. A prohibition on receiving registration approval with any Member Firm of the
Association for a period of ten (10) years, commencing on the effective date of
this Settlement Agreement;
5. Strict supervision for a period of two years upon any subsequent registration
approval with a Member Firm of the Association;
6. As a condition of re-approval, write and pass the examination based on the
Conduct and Practices Handbook for Securities Industry Professionals; and
7. As a condition of any subsequent term of re-approval by the Association in any
capacity, that the Respondent does not work directly, indirectly, or in
conjunction with WT (see Facts) in any manner whatsoever within the
securities industry.
Ms Xiao is also required to pay $25,000 toward the costs of the investigation.
Summary
of Facts
In late February 1999, while a registered representative at Gorinsen Capital Inc, the
Respondent opened an account for her client YZ. YZ deposited $50,000 for investment
on March 1. At that time she was 42 years old, employed as a hotel housekeeper with
an annual income of $20,000. The Respondent had known YZ for a few years, during
which time YZ had been a client of the Respondent’s husband, WT.
YZ signed three documents when she opened her Gorinsen account: a New Client
Application Form, a Trading Authorization and a Margin Agreement. All the forms
were in English. Her investment knowledge was rated as sophisticated, her investment
objectives were shown as 80% short term, 20% medium term and risk factors were
shown as 50% medium and 50% high. Although not approved for registration with the
Association, WT was given trading authorization over the account; however,
unbeknownst to YZ this authorization was revoked in May at the direction of the
Member firm. Throughout the period her account was active, YZ relied on both the
Respondent and WT to provide advice and conduct appropriate trading on her behalf.
YZ signed the documents without fully understanding them because her ability to
function in English - either verbally or in written form - was extremely limited. She
and the Respondent only ever communicated in Chinese. Due to the language barrier
and except for the personal information section, the Respondent filled out all the forms
without YZ’s assistance. YZ indicated that the Respondent never discussed or
explained objectives or risk factors to her. Moreover, YZ’s only investment experience
had been in mutual funds at banking institutions as a client of WT.
Over the next eight months the following activity took place in the client’s account:
• 356 trades (178 purchases and 178 sales);
• Purchases of approximately $8.2 million;
• Commissions charged of $25,258, this being more than half the client’s
original investment;
• Account losses of approximately $39,000;
• Turnover ratio of over 247, where a ratio of 6 is normally indicative of
excessive trading;
• Cost equity ratio of 83% this being the return required just to break even;
• Holding periods for most securities of 5 days or less with 80 securities being
sold the same day as they were purchased.
At various times throughout this period the client indicated that the trading in her
account was excessive and that she could not afford the commissions being charged.
However, the trading pattern continued unchanged and losses rapidly continued to
accumulate. Consequently, in October 1999 the client had the Respondent removed as
registered representative over the account.
Around this time the Respondent agreed to compensate YZ for an amount which would
restore the account to its original balance of $50,000. To this end the Respondent
delivered a cheque for $10,000 to YZ in partial satisfaction of this agreement but did
not deliver any further amounts.
Staff determined that the short-term holding strategy coupled with the excessive
number of trades and accompanying commissions made it impossible for YZ to
procure a profit. The activities were furthermore conducted in willful and/or reckless
disregard of YZ’s best interests and/or instructions in relation to the account over
which the Respondent bore responsibility.
In addition, the Respondent’s role in arranging compensation for YZ and delivering an
amount in partial satisfaction of this agreement, without the knowledge or consent of
her Member firm was conduct unbecoming a registered representative and detrimental
to the public interest.
Kenneth A. Nason
Association Secretary

虎 - Tiger