The during the 5 year period which I helped manage the client's portfolio the client closely monitored the account online as well as with the monthly statements and in regular communication. In our communications she never asserted during that period that she did not understand her investments, the risk or have any concern about the management of her accounts or the suitability of the investments being in line with her objectives.

The allegations from the client are patently false. During the period from May 2011 to June 2016 the client repeatedly ignored and refused recommendations to add to his bond portfolio. In addition, ignored and refused recommendations to invest into diversified mutual funds, ETFs and guaranteed annuities which provide greater diversification and lower risk than individual equities. In addition, the client refused to meet to discuss and review his portfolio. The client had decades of experience investing in individual securities and knew the risks inherent in investing in the securities markets. All of the securities that were purchased in the account were discussed in detail and authorized by the client. Stifel has thoroughly reviewed the client's claim and has denied any liability with respect to losses. I was not party to the decision to settle this baseless complaint.

I denied the allegations of unauthorized trades. One customer filed a complaint, this client logged into her account 900 to review the authorized activity - roughly every other day. My broker-dealer encouraged the client settle as an "accommodation" for a $15,000 credit to her account and that the settlement was "in no way to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of the firm or the representative". My employment was never in question at the time of the settlement, however six months later the firm decided to terminate my employment for the aforementioned complaint.

THE FIRM (MORGAN STANLEY DW), WITHOUT ADMITTING LIABILITY OF ANY NATURE, DECIDED TO SETTLE THIS MATTER TO AVOID THE COST, UNCERTAINTY AND DELAY OF ARBITATION.

IN ORDER TO AVOID THE COST AND UNCERTAINTY OF ARBITRATION THE FIRM, WITHOUT ADMITTING LIABILITY OF ANY KIND, DECIDED TO REACH A SETTLEMENT OF THIS MATTER.

I MOVED TO MORGAN STANLEY FROM LEGG MASON WHERE I MANAGED SEVERAL ACCOUNTS ON AN AUTHORIZED DISCRETIONARY BASIS. MORGAN STANLEY HAS A POLICY AGAINST HAVING DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNTS. I CONTINUED TO OFFER THAT SERVICE TO THOSE CLIENTS THAT HAD BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO THAT RELATIONSHIP BASED UPON THEIR VERBAL AUTHORITY. THE FIRM TERMINATED ME BASED UPON THAT VIOLATION OF ITS POLICY.

THE FIRM REACHED AN ACCOMMODATION WITH THE CUSTOMERS, WITHOUT ADMITTING LIABILITY, IN ORDER TO AVOID THE COSTS, UNCERTAINTY AND DELAYS ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL ARBITRATION.