NYSE Regulation Inc. announced today that it has censured and fined Van der Moolen Specialists USA LLC US$3.5 million for the misconduct of its stock loan department, which has since been closed, and for related supervisory deficiencies and books and records violations.

During the relevant period, the stock loan department engaged in numerous transactions at away-from-market rebate rates, and made payments to finders who performed no legitimate business function, the NYSE said. The firm settled these charges and neither admitted nor denied the charges.

“Van der Moolen’s complete lack of supervision of its stock loan business resulted in millions of dollars in fees being improperly channeled to finders who did nothing to earn them,” said Susan Merrill, chief of enforcement, NYSE Regulation. “Firms must ensure that services are being engaged for bona fide business purposes, and must have independent controls to verify that services paid for have actually been performed.”

The NYSE said that in a typical stock loan transaction, financial institutions that borrow and lend securities communicate directly, obviating the need for a third party to assist in locating securities (a “finder”). The insertion of a finder in a transaction where his services are not required, and where none are rendered, has the effect of unjustifiably and inappropriately increasing the cost of the transaction to the borrower, and/or depriving the lender of income to which it is entitled on the transaction.

It claims that from January through December 2004, the co-department heads and employees of VDM’s Stock Loan Department borrowed securities from complicit counterparties at rebate rates significantly below the prevailing market rebate rates for those securities, and then loaned those securities to third parties at higher rebate rates including market rates. The difference between the below-market rates at which the securities were borrowed and the higher rates at which the securities were loaned represented the firm’s gross revenues on these transactions.

The firm retained a portion of these revenues and paid significant portions to purported finders who performed no function in those stock loan transactions and in most instances were relatives or friends of employees at the complicit counterparties, it adds. “The firm cumulatively paid millions of dollars in unjustified finders fees to friends and family of complicit counterparties. In some transactions, finders were paid as much as 1,400 basis points on contracts when most finders would normally receive 25 basis points or less,” it notes.