Claimant claims an inappropriate investment strategy involving insurance was sold to him resulting in a loss. Everything was handled in accordance with company & industry standards. I am aggressively defending this dispute.

$650,000.00

Client bought an idex annuity of $990k. Already had $400k in fee based brokerage with me. The $990k came from a fixed interest account inside old employer 401K, they lowered rates, and he wanted to have potential to earn more without risk. we discussed difference between fixed and index annuities. FIA was the right fit for the part of portfolio. Complaint comes from right away not happy with [3rd pty] &[third party]. The company messed up the income stream payment. Issues 11/2014, income to start in 12/2014, didnt start until after first of year. this messed up income for them for 2014. Lots of documention at [3rd pty] on this, they admited making this mistake and send client a $300 gift card to apologize. next mistake was i was told by [3rd pty], my annuity consultant at Creative Marketing, FMO wrong info. This particular annuity was different from all the other FIAs i sell thru [3rd pty] and Creative, this one didnt allow any withdrawals in year one and 5% each yr thereafter, where most other annuities we sold offer 10% year and at least 5% available in the first year. I was told wrong. the client wanted immediate income from the annuity using the income rider. this would normally be okay, but the particular product didnt offer that access until after 12 months. The client over the first one year of owning this product got over the income situation starting and stoping problem because they had over $400k in fee based brokerage with us they can use to access. most of that brokerage was IRAs just like this FIA was so same taxes on withdrawals. the one year anniversary is coming up 11/2015, and over 2015 we have had at least 6 unscheduled conservations, and 5 scheduled meetings. 2015 was a negative year in the market. we prepped the client to expect no gain in this FIA as this is a safety product. there are small losses in the brokerage account, but not the FIA. in learning this, he had enough with [3rd pty] and sent a letter wanting money back. even though this was 3 years ago, i still remember this client telling me this is the product he wants. understands no guarantees on growth, and only get part of the gains, but never any stock market losses. should outperform a fixed annuity in the long run especailly in these very low interest rate times. The conclusion was i helped [3rd pty] and the client get his money back out of the product, by doing so there was a charge back. Because of this situations, [3rd pty] ate 50% of the charge back, then the remaining balance, ate another 50% of that because they knew they made mistakes here. Then the FMO Creative Marketing offered to eat 50% of the remainign balance of the charge back. leaving me very little to pay back in charge back. Clearly Athene and Creative Marketing would not have done any of this if they didnt feel both their organizations made mistakes. But as the advisor, i get all the blame and frustrations point to me from the client.

$897,600.00

THRIVENT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT

Discharged

RR ADMITTED TO VIOLATING FIRM POLICIES & PROCEDURES CONCERNING: AFFIXING CLIENT SIGNATURES; FALSELY REPRESENTING CLIENTS COMPLETED & SIGNED NEW ACCT PAPERWORK & LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION; ADVISING ON 401K ASSETS NOT HELD BY FIRM; DISCRETIONARY TRADING; KNOWINGLY ALLOWED OTHERS TO COMPLETE REQUIRED FIRM TRAINING & FALSELY REPRESENTED RR COMPLETED THE TRAINING; ACCEPTED TRADE AUTHORIZATIONS VIA EMAIL FROM CLIENT; EMAIL & DATA SECURITY. FIRM CONTENDS RR VIOLATED ITS RESPECTFUL WORKPLACE POLICY WHICH RR DENIES.

FINRA CONCLUDED THEIR INVESTIGATION INTO THE ALLEGED CIRCUMSTANCES AND DISCLOSURE EVENTS FILED BY THRIVENT AT TERMINATION, WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE A FINE, SUSPENSION OR ANY DISCIPLINARY ACTION. ALLEGATIONS OF AFFIXING CLIENT SIGNATURES AND FALSELY COMPLETING CLIENT NEW ACCT DOCS RELATE TO CONDUCT WITH ACTUAL OR IMPLIED CLIENT CONSENT/AUTHORIZATION. THE OTHER ALLEGATIONS INVOLVE UNINTENTIONAL VIOLATIONS OF FIRM POLICY DONE WITH INTENT TO SERVICE CLIENT REQUESTS. ALLOWING STAFF TO COMPLETE TRAINING MATERIALS WAS DONE TO ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE/TRAINING OF STAFF, AND WITH NO INTENT TO BENEFIT PERSONALLY. AFTER 12 YEARS OF A CLEAN RECORD, THRIVENT DID NOT ISSUE A WARNING OR OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT CONDUCT PRIOR TO TERMINATION WHICH WAS ALSO A RESULT OF A BAD RELATIONSHIP WITH MANAGER AND FORMER OFFICE PERSONNEL WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY FIRED BY ROBERTS.

THE CUSTOMER'S POA ALLEGES THAT THE REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE DELAYED THE LIQUIDATION OF THE CUSTOMER'S BROKERAGE ACCOUNT. FIRM RESOLVED ISSUE BY SETTLING WITH CUSTOMER IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,733.36.

$5,369.00

$4,733.36

POA FOR CLIENT CAME TO OFFICE WHILE I WAS IN A MEETING AND ASKED MY ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO CLOSE HIS MOTHER'S ACCOUNT. HE WAS UNCLEAR IN HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO LIQUIDATE OR TRANSFER THE ASSETS. HE DID NOT RETURN OUR PHONE CALL FOR 4 DAYS, BY THE TIME HE GAVE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATION INSTRUCTIONS, ACCOUNT HAD DROPPED IN VALUE. I DO NOT FEEL THAT THRIVENT SHOULD HAVE PAID FOR THE LOSS AS IT WAS THE CLIENT THAT DID NOT RESPOND TO OUR REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATION FOR FOUR DAYS - CAUSING THE DECLINE. THRIVENT SETTLED WITH POA, AGAINST MY WISHES.