CLIENT STATES IN 2001 HUNZIKER TOLD HER SHE COULD NOT PUT MONEY IN MONEY MARKET OR MORE SECURE INCOME FUND WITHOUT A VERY HIGH PENALTY. CLIENT ALSO STATES HUNZIKER TOLD HER TO LET HER MONEY RIDE AND THE FUND CHANGE CAPABILITIES WERE GROWTH/INCOME, NEW OPPORTUNITIES AND VOYAGER. IN JANUARY OF 2002, CLIENT INDICATED HUNZIKER TOLD HER AN INCOME FUND WAS AVAILABLE. CLIENT STATES HER ACCOUNT HAS LOST MONEY SINCE THE CLIENT HAD BEEN REQUESTING HUNZIKER CHANGE THE FUND ALLOCATIONS . CLIENT IS REQUESTING $25,130.00 FOR LOSSES INCURRED.

$25,130.00

ACCORDING TO IR, SHE RECALLS CLIENT'S CONCERN ON MARKET FLUCTUATION, BUT INDICATED CLIENT WAS NOT PLANNING ON RETIRING FOR SEVERAL YEARS. DUE TO LONG TERM HORIZON, IR RECOMMENDED CLIENT STICK WITH THE INVESTMENT PLAN. IR INDICATED CLIENT HAD ASKED ABOUT PUTTING THE MONEY IN A CD, BUT DUE TO THE GROWTH OF THE ANNUITY AND THE CLIENT'S AGE (UNDER 59 1/2), IR DID NOT RECOMMEND REMOVING MONEY FROM THE ANNUITY DUE TO PENALTIES AND TAX CONCERNS. IN JANUARY 2002, IR EMPHASIZED TO THE CLIENT THAT SHE OWNED QUALITY COMPANIES WITHIN THE ANNUITY AND THE STOCK MARKET HAD BEEN DOWN, BUT DUE TO THE CLIENT'S CONCERNS IR RECOMMENDED THE INCOME SUB-ACCOUNT. IR HAD NOT RECOMMENDED THIS OPTION IN THE PAST DUE TO THE CLIENT'S LONG-TERM TIME HORIZON. IN ADDITION, ACCORDING TO HARTFORD'S RECORDS THE CLIENT WAS INVESTED IN THE INCOME SUB-ACCOUNT DURING 1998 AND 1999. IT IS OUR OPINION THE CLIENT WAS AWARE THE INCOME SUB-ACCOUNT WAS AVAILABLE, BUT ACCEPTED IR'S RECOMMENDATIONS. CLIENT'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF LOSSES WAS DENIED.