9/10/08; CLIENT STATES SHE INHERITED HER IRA FROM HER FATHER AND THE FUNDS HAD BEEN REMAINING IN MONEY MARKET. CLIENT INDICATES THE FA INFORMED HER THERE WERE OTHER INVESTMENTS THAT WOULD BE SAFE THAT OFFER BETTER RETURNS. CLIENT CLAIMS AT NO POINT DID THE FA INFORM HER HE WOULD BE INVESTING THE FUNDS IN EQUITIES. CLIENT IS QUESTIONING THE SUITABILITY OF THE MUTUAL FUNDS. CLIENT IS REQUESTING HER ACCOUNT BE RETURNED TO THE VALUE PRIOR TO THESE TRADES BEING MADE. LOSSES EXCEED $5,000.

$5,000.00

ACCORDING TO FA, HE DID SPEAK WITH THE CLIENT ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 AT WHICH TIME HE DISCUSSED THE CLIENT'S OBJECTIVES FOR THE MONEY HELD IN THE ACCOUNT. FA HAS INDICATED CLIENT ULTIMATELY AGREED RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS FOR RETIREMENT AND INCOME WAS NEVER DISCUSSED AS ONE OF THE CLIENT'S OBJECTIVES FOR THESE FUNDS. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THE FA REVIEWED THE DETAILS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALLIANCE BERNSTEIN WEALTH STRATEGIES MUTUAL FUNDS WITH HER, INCLUDING THAT THE FUNDS WOULD GO UP AND DOWN IN VALUE. FA STATED HE NEVER INFORMED THE CLIENT THE MUTUAL FUNDS WERE SAFE. FA HAS STATED AFTER THIS DISCUSSION, CLIENT MADE THE DECISION TO PURCHASE C SHARES IN BOTH FUNDS AND HE FULLY BELIEVES CLIENT UNDERSTOOD SHE WAS BUYING AN EQUITY INVESTMENT. SINCE THE MUTUAL FUNDS WERE PURCHASED IN SEPTEMBER, CLIENT WOULD HAVE RECEIVED ACCOUNT STATEMENTS REFLECTING THE ACTIVITY IN HER ACCOUNT. FURTHER, TRADE CONFIRMATIONS, AS WELL AS PROSPECTUSES (WHICH DISCLOSE ALL DETAILS OF THE MUTUAL FUNDS) WOULD HAVE BEEN MAILED TO THE CLIENT AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE. IT DOES NOT APPEAR CLIENT EXPRESSED CONCERN REGARDING THE MUTUAL FUNDS UNTIL THREE MONTHS AFTER THE TRADE DATE. WHILE WE UNDERSTAND CLIENT'S DISAPPOINTMENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MUTUAL FUNDS, WE HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING TUMULTUOUS MARKET CONDITIONS AND FLUCTUATION IS A RISK ASSOCIATED WITH INVESTING. BASED ON OUR REVIEW, WE RESPECTFULLY DENY CLIENT'S REQUEST TO REINSTATE HER ACCOUNT TO THE VALUE PRIOR TO INVESTING IN THE MUTUAL FUNDS.

CLIENT STATES HE WAS ADVISED BY IR TO PURCHASE TWO STOCKS AND AN ANNUITY AND HAS LOST MONEY. CLIENT ALSO STATES HE WAS PROMISED AN 8% ANNUAL RETURN ON HIS INVESTMENT AND HAS LOST SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT SURE OF THE DEATH PAYOUT AS PROMISED. CLIENT STATES HE HAS LOST $16,691 OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

$16,691.00

AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASES OF SCHERING PLOUGH AND MCI WORLDCOM INVESTMENTS, OUR FIRM MAINTAINED A BUY RECOMMENDATION AND THE INVESTMENTS WERE CATEGORIZED AS "GROWTH". EDWARD JONES OPINIONS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THE OPINION IS PUBLISHED AND WHILE WE BELIEVE THE INFORMATION ON WHICH THE OPINION IS BASED IS RELIABLE, IT IS NOT GUARANTEED. OUR RESEARCH ANALYSTS ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO CLIENTS TO ASSIST THEM IN MAKING INVESTMENT DECISIONS. HOWEVER, OUR ANALYSTS ARE ATTEMPTING TO PREDICT AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE. BECAUSE THE FUTURE CANNOT BE PREDICTED WITH COMPLETE ACCURACY, WE ENCOURAGE OUR CLIENTS TO PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE BY MAINTAINING DIVERSIFIED PORTFOLIOS. AS TO THE NOTE REGARDING THE ANNUITY, THE IR HAS INDICATED HE EXPLAINED THE DETAILS OF THE ANNUITY INCLUDING FEES, THE UNDERLYING INVESTMENTS, TAX-DEFERRED GROWTH AND THE DEATH BENEFIT. IR CONTENDS HE DID NOT GUARANTEE AN EIGHT PERCENT RETURN. BASED ON OUR INVESTIGATION, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THE INVESTMENTS HELD IN THE ACCOUNT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES AS LISTED ON THE ACCOUNT.

THE CLIENT STATES TWO WITHDRAWALS FROM HER ACCOUNT WERE ACCEPTED PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF HER FORMER HUSBAND, 6/3/99 FOR $3,110 AND 9/7/98 FOR $7,000. THE CLIENT ALLEGES BOTH WITHDRAWALS WERE DONW WITHOUT THE CLIENTS AUTHORIZATION. THE CLIENT REQUEST THE FUNDS BE RETURNED IN ADDITION TO EDJ INCURRING LIABILITIY FOR THE TAX CONSEQUENCES DUE TO THE WITHDRAWAL. F

$10,110.00

FOR EACH DISTRIBUTION, THE BRANCH STAFF REQUESTED SIGNATURES ON DOCUMENTS THAT WERE FORWARDED TO THE PUTNAM FUND. PUTNAM ISSUED CHECKS OUT TO CUSTOMER ONLY AT THE ADDRESS OF RECORD LISTED ON THE ACCOUNT. THE SIGNATURES ON THE BACK OF THE CHECKS AND SIGNATURES ON THE REQUESTS FOR DISTRIBUTION APPEAR SIMILAR. THE BRANCH STAFF ACTED APPROPRIATELY IN REQUESTING THE APPROPRIATE SIGNED DOCUMENTS. CLAIM DENIED.