This is a second complaint related to a matter that was reviewed and denied in September 2000. Client alleges she was not made aware of the fees associated with the variable annuity contract and is asking for surrender charges to be waived, contract costs to be reimbursed and lost interest.

$7,983.54

Client stated in credit union survey the advisor did not follow through on what she asked him to complete. She stated that when investments started to show a decline, she requested money to be moved into her savings account at the credit union. She is unhappy with a $31k loss and not having control of her funds. She is also unhappy that her monthly distribution of $802 has not been deposited into her credit union account yet (she expected it 7/26/2020). At the time the complaint was resolved, it was determined she was content with keeping the variable annuity in place and the monthly distributions have now started.

$31,000.00

I was introduced to this customer via referral from Addition Financial CU. After a review of her current financial situation and anticipated future needs, we devised a preliminary budget and financial plan which included using a portion of her life insurance needs to produce an income that she could not outlive while retaining control of the underlying assets. There were 13 documented interactions with her between the trade date and the date of her complaint. During those, I reminded her of our original goals and objectives and the underlying plan and offered alternative strategies to help mitigate market downturns as well as further erosion of principal. We reached a satisfactory path forward after consulting with her daughter and her pastor during two separate meetings. Her response to the credit union survey was in response to a misunderstanding regarding the commencement date for the deposit of her income benefit.

$157,225.95

Civil

Client verbally alleged, inter alia, that investment transactions in her account were not authorized - June 2018 to July 2018.

$15,412.00

Client made these allegations after rep departure from prior firm. Firm settled this as a business decision rather than pursuing it any further. Rep categorically denies these allegations and was not given a chance to review before settlement was made and did not contribute monetarily. Client received e-delivery of prospectus for transactions in question. Structured products transactions were not allowed to be made unless a prospectus was e-delivered. Furthermore, transactions were discussed both with the client and her son before purchases were made. There was a discussion of the account and strategy both on the phone and in person on an almost weekly basis both before and after the time period in question. Additionally, compliance required a detailed explanation for structured product transactions and these transactions were approved by them. This client relationship existed for a number of years. Due to the nature of the employment agreements the previous broker/dealer enforces upon its reps, proactive contact on part of rep could not be made without violating those employment covenants.