The client alleges her advisor recommended unsuitable investments and negligently managed her Strategic Asset Management Account leading to losses.

$43,693.52

The client initially wanted a Capital Preservation account but insisted on maintaining and increasing positions in Gold and Silver ETFs. Before account opening, the advisor explicitly cautioned the client that LPL's Strategic Asset Management ("SAM") advisory guidelines prohibited Capital Preservation accounts from holding the client's desired ETF positions. The client acknowledged understanding of the asset class limitations in a Capital Preservation account and agreed to open a fully discretionary SAM advisory account with an investment objective of Income & Growth. A review of the advisor's meeting notes, call notes, trade confirmations, and portfolio reviews show that the advisor managed the client's accounts with a professional standard of care and aligned with the client's directions and investment objectives. The advisor and LPL deny any allegations of wrongdoing.

CLIENT IS UPSET WITH THE DECLINE IN VALUE OF THEIR BONDS. CLIENT CLAIMS THEY WERE MISLED REGARDING THE COMMISSIONS AND CLAIMS THE MATURITIES ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THEM BASED ON THEIR AGES.

$19,183.00

FA STATED, AT THE TIME ACCOUNT WAS ESTABLISHED, CLIENT'S AGE, HEALTH, NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES WERE DISCUSSED. ACCORDING TO FA, HE INDICATED HE DISCUSSED VARIOUS INVESTMENT OPTIONS. HE STATED CLIENTS INFORMED HIM THEY DID NOT NEED INCOME FROM THE INVESTMENT(S) AND WANTED TO REDUCE TAX EXPOSURE. FA INDICATED BONDS WERE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL AND WERE FULLY AWARE THE BONDS COULD FLUCTUATE IN VALUE. FA STATE CLIENTS WERE INFORMED THERE WAS A COMMISSION CHARGE ON THE BOND PURCHASES. ACCORDING TO FA, HE NEVER INFORMED CLIENTS THE BROKERAGE FEES WOULD BE PAID BY THE BOND ISSUER. FA STATED CLIENT WAS VERY INFORMED AND EXPERIENCED INVESTOR AND HE BELIEVED FULLY UNDERSTOOD THE INVESTMENTS PURCHASED AND THE ASSOCIATED RISKS DISCUSSED. FA INDICATED CIENTS DID CONTACT HIM SOME TIME IN MAY OR JUNE (AFTER HE HAD LEFT EDWARD JONES) TO DISCUSS EDWARD JONES ACCOUNT. MR. DURDEN STATED, DURING BRIEF CONVERSATION, HE INVITED THEM TO VISIT WITH HIM, HOWEVER, CLIENTS DID NOT FOLLOW-UP WITH HIM ON HIS OFFER. BASED ON OUR REVIEW, IT DOES APPEAR THE BONDS IN QUESTION WERE PURCHASED AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH FA AND WERE PLACED WITH CLIENTS AUTHORIZATION. AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE (JANUARY 2007 AND MARCH 2007) CLIENTS WOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH TRADE CONFIRMATIONS SETTING OUT THE DETAILS OF THE INVESTMENT(S) PURCHASED (TO INCLUDE MATURITY DATES). ADDITIONALLY, CLIENTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH CUSTOMER ACCOUNT STATEMENTS FROM THE TIME OF PURCHASE WHICH REFLECT THE HOLDINGS AND PROVIDE THE APPROXIMATE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES. THE BONDS PURCHASED APPEAR TO BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE AND REPRESENT A SMALL PERCENTAGE (JUST OVER 3%) OF THE STATED NET WORTH REFLECTED ON ACCOUNT. WHILE WE UNDERSTAND DISSATISFACTION WITH THE CURRENT VALUE OF THE BONDS, MARKET FLUCTUATION IS A RISK ASSOCIATED WITH INVESTING. CLAIM DENIED.