Seems a high fine for a violation that was self-reported and, to the extent possible, corrected.

FINRA should re-examine the internal logic of its fine amounts. In today's newsletter, a bank is fined $500,000 for a SAR reporting failure that was unintentional and self-reported.  

Excessive trading at the level described in the above enforcement actions is not a close call; it is just a form of theft. Two brokers who essentially stole money from their retail customers are fined, respectively, nothing and $10,000. That sends the wrong message.   

Does the punishment fit the crime? In this case, how is such a level of trading in the account of an elderly person in order to generate commission revenue any different from theft? Why is a $5,000 fine sufficient to punish that theft?  Why is the broker not responsible for the customers' full losses?   

In many cases, it seems that the regulators over-punish technical violations of complicated rules where no harm is done. Here, there is a clear act of malfeasance, but…

This is a good illustration of the fact that a firm can be subject to a legal violation for failure to supervise even when, as in this case, there is no resulting violation of the substantive rule.