FINRA

RESPONDENT GUIDO FAILED TO COMPLY WITH AN ARBITRATION AWARD OR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR TO SATISFACTORILY RESPOND TO A FINRA REQUEST TO PROVIDE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE STATUS OF COMPLIANCE.

LETTER

Suspension

ANY CAPACITY

N/A

9/9/2015

PURSUANT TO ARTICLE VI, SECTION 3 OF FINRA BY-LAWS, AND FINRA RULE 9554, RESPONDENT GUIDO IS SUSPENDED ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN ARBITRATION AWARD OR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR TO SATISFACTORILY RESPOND TO A FINRA REQUEST TO PROVIDE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE STATUS OF COMPLIANCE.

MARYLAND FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.

Discharged

REPRESENTATIVE SUBJECT TO ALABAMA REGULATORY ACTION.

LPL FINANCIAL LLC

Discharged

REPRESENTATIVE SUBJECT TO ALABAMA REGULATORY ACTION.

ALABAMA SECURITIES COMMISSION

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT ON DECEMBER 4, 2013FSC SECURITIES CORPORATION FILED FOR REGISTRATION, ON BEHALFOF THEIR EMPLOYEE WILLAM GUIDO. DURING REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTED APPLICATION IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT TWO DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HAD BEEN ALTERED. ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WERE OBTAINED BY THE COMMISSION FOR COMPARISON AND THE ALTERATIONS WERE FOUND. GUIDO LEFT EMPLOYMENT WITH FSC AND BEGAN WORKING WITH ANOTHER COMPANY. GUIDO WAS GIVEN AN ORDER OF BAR BY THE COMMISSION.DUE TO NO RESPONSE, OB-2014-0022 WAS MADE A FINAL ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ON 03/11/15.

DUE TO NO RESPONSE, OB-2014-0022 WAS MADE A FINAL ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ON 03/11/15.

Bar (Permanent)

ALL CAPACITIES

3/11/2015

08/01/2008-08/18/2009; CLIENT STATES HE WAS ADVISED BY THE FA TO SELL HIS BONDS AND INVEST INTO THE ADVISORY SOLUTIONS. CLIENT STATES THIS WAS A HUGE MISTAKE. CLIENT STATES OTHERS HAVE TOLD HIM THIS WAS A TERRIBLE MOVE. CLIENT CLAIMS WHEN HE PURCHASED THE LARGER OF HIS TWO ANNUITIES, IT DID NOT HAVE A RIDER PUT ON IT WHEN ISSUED. CLIENT STATES THE FA TOLD HIM THIS WAS HARTFORD'S FAULT AND HARTFORD STATES THE "BOX" WASN'T CHECKED. CLIENT CLAIMS FA CALLED HARTFORD IN HIS PRESENCE AND HARTFORD SAID THEY WOULD ISSUE A REPLACEMENT RIDER STARTING FROM THE DATE OF THE PHONE CALL. CLIENT CLAIMS THE FA FAILED TO MENTION THE PRICE WOULD INCREASE. CLIENT WANTS TO KNOW WHO IS AT FAULT REGARDING THE EXECUTION OF THE ANNUITY. CLIENT ALSO CLAIMS HE RECENTLY FOUND OUT THE ANNUITIES WOULD NOT PROVIDE GUARANTEED INCOME FOR AS LONG AS HE LIVES. CLIENT STATES IT WILL ONLY BE GOOD FOR 20 YEARS IF HE WITHDRAWS 5% A YEAR, AND ONLY 14 1/4 YEARS IF HE WITHDRAWS 7% A YEAR. CLIENT CLAIMS HE LOST $46,200.00 ON THE SALE OF HIS BONDS TO GO INTO ADVISORY SOLUTIONS, AND $26,700.00 IN ADVISORY SOLUTIONS AS WELL AS $51,703.92 IN HIS TWO ANNUITIES. CLIENT STATES THEY ARE HOLDING EDWARD JONES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOSSES SINCE THE INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS WERE MADE WHILE THE FA WAS EMPLOYED WITH EDWARD JONES.

$5,000.00

FA STATES HE PRESENTED ADVISORY SOLUTIONS AND EXPLAINED HOW IT WORKED, DIVERSIFICATION, MONEY MANAGER AND MONTHLY REBALANCING. FA CLAIMS HE ALSO EXPLAINED TO THE CLIENT THEY WOULD INCUR A LOSS ON THE SALE OF THEIR BONDS. FA CLAIMS THE CLIENT REVIEWED THE INFORMATION AND DECIDED TO SELL THEIR BONDS AND INVEST INTO ADVISORY SOLUTIONS. THE FA'S FIELD SUPERVISION DIRECTOR CONTACTED THE CLIENT TO REVIEW THEIR DECISION AND CONFIRM THE CLIENT UNDERSTOOD THEY UNDERSTOOD ALL COMMISSIONS, FEES AND CHARGES INVOLVED, AS WELL AS THE FACT THERE IS NOT GUARANTEE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THE FSD ALSO FOLLOWED UP WITH A LETTER TO THE CLIENT CONFIRMING THE CONVERSATION. ACCORDING TO THE FSD, THE CLIENT STATED THEY WANTED TO SELL THEIR CURRENT INVESTMENTS AND MOVE TO ADVISORY SOLUTIONS. THE CLIENT INCURRED LOSSES IN ADVISORY SOLUTIONS WHEN THEY INSTRUCTED THE FA THAT TOOK OVER THEIR ACCOUNT AT OUR FIRM TO SELL OUT OF THE PROGRAM. ACCORDING TO THE FA, THE CLIENT WAS NOT OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS, JUST WANTED TO SELL OUT OF THE PROGRAM AND TRANSFER TO THE FIRM HIS PREVIOUS FA HAD MOVED TO. EXPLAINED TO THE CLIENT THE INSURANCE COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO INCREASE PRICES ON THEIR ANNUITY CONTRACTS AND EXPLAINED, THE CLIENT DID NOT PAY FOR THE RIDER DURING THE TIME THEY DID NOT HAVE IT. ALSO EXPLAINED TO THE CLIENT, ACCORDING TO PUBLIC MORTALITY TABLES, THE LIFE EXPECTANCY FOR A MALE WHO IS 80 YEARS OLD (AGE CLIENT WAS AT TIME OF ANNUITY PURCHASES), IS 89-90 YEARS OF AGE. EXPLAINED, SINCE THE GUARANTEED INCOME OF 7% FOR AT LEAST 14 YEARS OR 5% FOR AT LEAST 20 YEARS, IS LONGER THAN THE STATISTICS AVAILABLE FOR HIS LIFE EXPECTANCY. EXPLAINED TO CLIENT THE RISK OF MARKET FLUCTUATION AND MARKET LOSS. REQUEST FOR ANY REIMBURSEMENT WAS DENIED.

08/2008-03/24/2009; THE TRUSTEE CLAIMS THAT THE FORMER FA RECOMMENDED THE CLIENT TRANSFER HER ACCOUNTS TO THE ADVISORY SOLUTIONS PROGRAM IN AUGUST 2008. THE TRUSTEE HAS CONCERNS WITH THE FACT THAT BONDS THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY OWNED WERE SOLD AT A LOSS BEFORE MATURITY, THE ASSET ALLOCATION THAT WAS CHOSEN FOR THE ADVISORY SOLUTIONS PROGRAM, THE PROGRAM FEES, AND THAT THE CLIENT WAS INVESTED IN OVER 20 DIFFERENT FUNDS. THE TRUSTEE ALSO MENTIONS PROBLEMS THAT WERE ENCOUNTERED TO ALLOW THE TRUSTEE TO MAKE CHANGES IN THE CLIENT'S IRA ACCOUNT IN THE ADVISORY SOLUTIONS PROGRAM. THE CLIENT CLAIMS THAT THE CLIENT HAS SUFFERED LOSSES DUE TO MARKET FLUCTUATION DURING THE TIME CHANGES WERE REQUESTED TO THE ALLOCATION OF THE ASSETS AND THE PRESENT. FILING REQUIRED. CLAIMED LOSSES EXCEED $5,000. ***THE TRUSTEE HAS CONCERNS WITH THE SUITABILITY OF THE INITIAL ASSET ALLOCATION RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PREVIOUS FA AS WELL AS CONCERNS WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH REQUESTED CHANGES IN THE ACCOUNT WITHIN ADVISORY SOLUTIONS HAS BEEN HANDLED BY THE FIRM. ***

$5,000.00

$4,185.98

IT WAS DETERMINED THAT DUE TO THE CLIENT'S FRUSTRATION OF NOT BEING ABLE TO AMEND HER ADVISORY SOLUTIONS PROGRAM WHILE SHE WAS OUT OF THE COUNTRY AN OFFER WAS MADE TO REIMBURSE THE CLIENT AS IF SHE COULD HAVE MADE THE CHANGES SHE WANTED IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,185.98. THE OFFER WAS ACCEPTED AND ACCOUNTS CREDITED ON 5/8/09.

EDWARD JONES

Discharged

WAS TERMINATED FOR SIGNING MY GRANDFATHERS NAME TO DOCUMENTS TO TRANSFER MONEY TO HIS AND MY BANK ACCOUNTS. HAD HIS STATEMENTS DELIVERED TO MY HOUSE. PROVIDED INACCURATE RESPONSES TO HOME OFFICE INUIRIES. ENTERED FALSE INFORMATION INTO THE FIRMS COMPUTER SYSTEM. PROVIDED MISLEADING INFORMATION DURING THE FIRMS INVESTIGATION.

IN REGARD TO THE SIGNATURES...THERE WAS A POA IN PLACE, AND WAS ALWAYS DIRECTED BY MY GRANDFATHER VERBALLY, AS WELL AS MY GRANDFATHERS ATTORNEY SENT EDWARD JONES A LETTER STATING THAT HE AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED ALL TRANSACTIONS AND DID NOT HOLD ANYONE LIABLE FOR ANYTHING. THE STATEMENTS WERE SENT TO MY HOUSE AT HIS DIRECTION TO PREVENT HIS KIDS FROM SEEING HIS FINANCIAL BUSINESS, AS THEY LIVE CLOSE TO HIM AND STOP BY VERY FREQUENTLY. I SPOKE WITH HIM ALMOST DAILY AND ADVISED HIM ON HIS ACCOUNTS. IN REGARD TO MISLEADING AND INACCURATE INFORMATION, I INITIALLY DENIED SIGNING MY GRANDFATHERS NAME BECAUSE I WAS SCARED UPON THE INITIAL CALL. I HAVE NEVER BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY KIND OF INVESTIGATION BEFORE IN MY LIFE, BUT ON THE NEXT CALL I ADMITTED TO SIGNING HIS NAME. IN REGARD TO THE INFORMATION PUT INTO THE COMPUTER SYSTEM, I MADE A VERY BRIEF EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT WAS BEING DONE WITH THE MONEY AT MY GRANDFATHERS DIRECTION. MY GRANDFATHER LIVES STATES AWAY AND I WAS ALWAYS ACTING IN HIS BEST INTEREST.