To: Bear Down who wrote (9796 ) 5/7/2002 12:13:31 PM From: StockDung Respond to of 19428 Wall St. beware: state regulators have questions By Per Jebsen NEW YORK, (Reuters) -- Don't underestimate the wrath of Main Street investors and their advocates, who are knocking on Wall Street's door with some pesky -- and perhaps expensive -- questions. Securities regulators from at least a dozen states, including California and New Jersey, are eager to participate in a probe into whether Wall Street analysts put out biased and overly bullish stock research to win investment banking business. Most suspect investors from their states, which also include Alabama and Indiana, were harmed by the allegedly tainted research. "We believe that these practices that present conflicts of interest appear to be widespread," said David Samson, attorney general for New Jersey. "We are certainly going to look at a wide area of concern." New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has grabbed headlines with his investigation of Merrill Lynch & Co. and other firms. Spitzer's investigation has brought the Securities and Exchange Commission and potentially the Department of Justice into the fray. Wall Street analysts have been targeted -- some say scapegoated -- for having lured investors into risky tech and telecom stocks that subsequently tumbled in the two-year bear market. Samson, Spitzer and others last month formed a multi-state task force under the auspices of the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), consisting of securities regulators from 12 states, according to NASAA spokesman Ashley Baker. New York, New Jersey, and California are serving as co-chairs of the task force, he said. The other members are Utah, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Alabama and Indiana, Baker said. While the roles of the various states on the task force are being worked out, broader information-gathering efforts directed at Wall Street firms are likely to begin very soon, Samson said. New York's Spitzer has already delivered subpoenas to many top investment banks. "The financial firm should not be favoring one set of its customers over another, and preliminarily, there was some information to suggest that that has happened," Samson said. States participating in the probe expect to rely on state statutes similar to New York's Martin Act, which Spitzer has used to threaten Merrill and its Internet analysts with potential criminal liability. The claim would be that analysts touted stocks they privately derided to win banking business and enhanced compensation. "Here in New Jersey there are securities laws that provide ample authority to protect investors against fraud and deceitful conduct," Samson said. Merrill has said the e-mails uncovered by Spitzer in which its Internet analysts disparaged stocks to which they had given top ratings were taken out of context and that the charges against it are groundless. Yet the No. 1 U.S. brokerage is expected to settle soon with Spitzer in order to avoid criminal charges. CALIFORNIA SUBPOENAS MERRILL California regulators have sent subpoenas to Merrill focused specifically on California investors. These subpoenas have requested information concerning contacts between Merrill and California investors with respect to tech stocks that were identified by Spitzer in his probe, according to Andre Pineda, assistant commissioner of the California Department of Corporations. "If we discover that Merrill has been very, very bad to California investors, this would be even more leverage for Spitzer and the task force in the negotiations (with Merrill)," Pineda said. "As California's securities regulator, we are making sure that California investors receive the compensation they deserve for having been taken advantage of, if that proves to be the case," he said. The appropriate role for the states in the investigations into Wall Street is to ensure that individual investors are protected, Pineda said. That may include using any settlement funds for investor education, he said. Spitzer's investigation, by uncovering dramatic potential evidence of analysts' conflicts of interest, indicates that the self-regulatory organizations such as the National Association of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock Exchange may have been remiss in their watchdog duties, he said. "Clearly, there has been a failure," Pineda said. "If the states can provide an impetus for the national organizations to make the structural changes and changes in the standards necessary, then the states will have done their part," he said. 05/07/02 11:52 ET