Page 1 of 1 , 3 Items in Total
30450 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Letter of Admonition
Keyword(s): Books and Records; Conflict of Interest; Disclosure to Clients; Client's Best Interest
Standard(s) Violated: Article Article 3(d); 4.4; 4.3; 2.2(b); 1.4; Article 3(a)
Matter Type(s): Regulatory Action; CFP Board
Decision Date: 10/02/2017
Summary:

Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he failed to: (a) seek best execution for clients when investing them in share classes that charged 12b-1 fees despite the availability of corresponding share classes without the fees; (b) disclose in his firm’s Forms ADV and advisory agreements the conflicts of interest that existed regarding his recommendations to clients of mutual funds that contained 12b-1 fees; and (c) perform required annual compliance reviews.


29051 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Letter of Admonition
Keyword(s): Suitability; Professional Discipline; Client's Best Interest
Standard(s) Violated: Article 4.5; 1.4; 5.1; 4.1; 6.5; 4.4; 4.3
Matter Type(s): Other Professional Discipline
Decision Date: 06/10/2015
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he recommended a client liquidate her variable annuity without: 1) becoming the agent of record on the variable annuity; 2) handling the liquidation through his employer; 3) seeking approval from his employer for conducting outside business activities; and 4) knowing the cost basis of the variable annuity prior to making the recommendation.

30034 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Letter of Admonition
Keyword(s): Professionalism; Securities Laws Violation; Professional Discipline
Standard(s) Violated: Article 4.3; 4.1; Article 3(a); 1.4
Matter Type(s): Regulatory Action
Decision Date: 10/06/2016
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he entered into a settlement with the State Department of Consumer and Business Services Division of Finance and Corporate Securities (“State”), in which State found Respondent charged unreasonable advisory fees on rare coins because he relied on an inaccurate source to value the coins.

Page 1 of 1 , 3 Items in Total