6/10/04-9/4/09; THE CLIENT ALLEGED THAT HE WAS ADVISED BY THE FA AND HARTFORD TO COMBINE FOUR SEPARATE INSURANCE POLICIES INTO ONE IN 2004 AND USE THE EXISTING CASH VALUES TO BUY A SINGLE PAY PREMIUM POLICY. THE CLIENT STATED THAT THE CASH VALUE AT THAT TIME WAS $285,000.00 AND THE CASH WAS USED TO INCREASE THE INSURANCE COVERAGE FROM $780,000.00 IN THE PREVIOUS EXISTING POLICIES TO $1,060,000.00 WITH THE HARTFORD. THE CLIENT WAS LED TO BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS A SINGLE PAY AND THAT THERE WOULD BE NO FURTHER PREMIUMS DUE ON THE HARTFORD CONTRACT. THE CLIENT ADVISED THAT THIS WAS NOT THE CASE AND THE INSURANCE WITH THE HARTFORD HAS NOW BEEN REDUCED TO $560,000.00, SO THAT THE CASH VALUE CAN COVER THE PREMIUM. THE CLIENT ALSO STATED THAT HE PURCHASED A RATED POLICY FROM THE HARTFORD AT HIS AGE OF 62. THE PREVIOUS POLICIES WERE RATED WHEN HE WAS IN HIS EARLY FORTIES AND HAD NO HEALTH PROBLEMS. THE CLIENT WANTS THE HARTFORD CONTRACT REINSTATED AT $1,060,000.00 AND PAID UP IN FULL.

$5,000.00

I FORWARDED TWO COPIES OF MY RESPONSE TO THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, WHO REQUESTED INFORMATION ON THIS FILE. THE CLIENT SIGNED DOCUMENTS IN 2005 STATING THAT HE RECEIVED THE ILLUSTRATIONS, PROSPECTUS AND POLICY ASSOCIATED WITH THE 1035 EXCHANGE INTO THIS VARIABLE LIFE CONTRACT. THE FA MET WITH THE CLIENT NUMEROUS TIMES TO REVIEW THIS EXCHANGE, PRIOR TO MAKING THE PURCHASE. SINCE IT INVOLVED ESTATE AND TAX MATTERS, THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR REQUESTED THE ASSISTANCE FROM THE HARFORD ON THIS MATTER. THE CLIENT MET WITH THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE HARTFORD AND THE RISKS AND MARKET FLUCTUATION ASSOCIATED WITH A VARIABLE CONTRACT WERE REVIEWED AND DISCUSSED. THE ILLUSTRATIONS WERE APPROVED BY THE CLIENT AND THE EDWARD JONES' FIELD SUPERVISION DEPARTMENT REVIEWED AND APPROVED OF THE EXCHANGE. SINCE WE FELT THAT THE CLIENT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE RECEIVED THE ILLUSTRATIONS AND THE CONTRACT AND WAS AWARE THAT THE MARKET VALUES COULD FLUCTUATE AND THE PREMIUMS COULD VARY, HIS REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT WAS DENIED.

CLIENT STATES STRENG IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BAD RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOR NOT MONITORING AND CONTACTING HIM TO LET HIM KNOW HIS PORTFOLIO WAS DECLINING IN VALUE. CLIENT INDICATED HE HAS LOST $10,000 AND WOULD LIKE TO BE COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSSES.

$10,000.00

ACCORDING TO STRENG WHEN THE ACCTS WERE ORIGINALLY OPENED, HE ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN A DIVERSIFIED, BALANCED PORTFOLIO, HOWEVER, THE CLIENTS WERE INTERESTED IN THE VAN WAGONER FUND THAT WAS GETTING INCREDIBLE RETURNS. STRENG INFORMED THE CLIENTS THE FIRM DID NOT OFFER THE FUND AND IT IS UNDERSTOOD THE CLIENTS WANTED AN INVESTMENT THAT COULD "TAKE OFF" TO "MAKE UP FOR LOST TIME". DUE TO THIS CONVERSATION, STRENG INDICATED HE HAD OFFERED THE VKM EMERGING GRWTH FUND AND TECH FUND. IT IS UNDERSTOOD STRENG EXPLAINED THESE FUNDS WERE AGGRESSIVE AND VOLATILE. IN ADDITION TO THE MUTUAL FUND DISCUSSION, STRENG INDICATED CLIENTS WERE INTERESTED IN AN AGGRESSIVE STOCK THAT COULD REALLY MAKE SOME MONEY. OUR RECORDS INDICATE THERE WERE TWO STOCK PURCHASES ON MAY 20,1999-COMPAQ AND LUCENT. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THE COMPAQ STOCK PRICE WAS NOT CLIMBING THE WAY THE CLIENTS WANTED AND ON DECEMBER 20, 1999 THE STOCK WAS SOLD AND THE VKM TECHNOLOGY FUND WAS PURCHASED. IT DOES NOT APPEAR STRENG AT ANYTIME MADE ANY GUARANTEES TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE INVESTMENTS. STRENG STATED HE HAD EMPHASIZED TO THE CLIENTS THAT THEY HAD A RISKY PORTFOLIO AND HE NOR THE FIRM BELIEVED IN THIS TYPE OF AGGRESSIVE INVESTING. EXPLAINED THE FIRM'S INVESTMENT PHILOSOPHY IS TO BUY QUALITY INVESTMENTS AND HOLD FOR THE LONG TERM. IN REGARDS TO THE CONTACT THE CLIENT RECEIVED FROM STRENG, HE INDICATED HE HAD MADE SUGGESTIONS OF AVERAGING DOWN, ADDITIONAL IRA CONTRIBUTIONS AND DIVERSIFICATION OF THE PORTFOLIOS. STRENG ALSO STATED HE HAD SENT THE CLIENTS AN INVESTMENT GOALS WORKSHEET AND CLIENT PROFILE TO COMPLETE. STRENG STATED THESE FORMS WERE NOT RETURNED AND HE BELIEVED THE FORMS SENT TO THE CLIENTS WOULD HELP TO DEFINE THEIR EXPECTATIONS OF HIM AND THEIR INVESTMENT GOALS. IT IS OUR OPINION STRENG HANDLED THE ACCTS APPROPRIATELY. CLAIM DENIED.