Claimants allege Mr. Beebe failed to supervise a registered representative accused of poor customer service, unsuitable investment recommendations, and the firm's failure to disclose possible conflicts of interest.

$5,000.00

$45,000.00

Claimant alleged unsuitable investment recommendations caused her to lose approximately $300,000, representing claimed lost investment opportunities. Based upon her financial plan, Claimant's stated goal was to retire in 2015 at the age of 54, with an expectation of living until age 90, and paying for her son's college tuition from 2017 through 2020. Because of these anticipated short-term distribution needs and her moderate risk tolerance, broker recommended, among other investments, bond mutual funds which paid periodic interest and dividend payments and were less volatile in market price than stocks. By December of 2015, Claimant chose to move to a cash position due to market volatility, contrary to the broker's recommendation. Claimant alleged her portfolio was not properly diversified. However, had Claimant been patient and committed to the financial plan prepared for her in 2015, she would not have suffered the losses she claimed. Respondent elected to settle the matter for $45,000 with a denial of any wrongdoing. John Beebe was never named as a party in the aforementioned arbitration. The Firm conducted an internal investigation into Mr. Beebe's supervisory procedures in this situation and concluded that Mr. Beebe did not fail to supervise the registered representative involved in the Claimant's arbitration claim.

On or about 5/23/2016, the rep received a letter from the clients stating that they had terminated services with the Firm because of advice provided regarding [customer's] MetLife variable annuity. The [customers] claim withdraws made from an existing annuity caused loss of their income rider and questioned where approximately $31,000.00 in additional withdraws taken from said account were invested.

$114,000.00

A thorough investigation was conducted by the Compliance Department. The investigation resulted in the following conclusions: 1) the recommendations were made in order to help the Cline's meet their retirement lifestyle goals; 2) the [customer's] income rider was reduced, but not forfeited, by the withdraws taken; 3) the impact of the recommendations made were discussed with the [customer] on multiple occasions; and 4) the additional withdraws were made by the Cline's in 2010 to purchase a boat, prior to hiring the firm. The findings of the investigation were concluded with a letter to the client dated 7/1/2016. A face-to-face meeting was offered to clarify any outstanding concerns. We find the allegations unsubstantiated and consider this matter closed.