Page 1 of 1 , 3 Items in Total
27565 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Suspension
Keyword(s): Suitability; Diligence; Client's Best Interest; Professionalism
Standard(s) Violated: Article Article 3(b); Article 3(a); 703; 701; 202; 201
Matter Type(s): Complaint to CFP Board
Decision Date: 06/01/2016
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he failed to exercise reasonable and prudent judgment when he: 1) failed to properly analyze and account for the client’s needs and cash flow, 2) failed to include the costs of the VUL policies, variable annuities and REITs in his 2001 and 2008 financial plans; 3) recommended and sold to the client unsuitable VUL policies, variable annuities and REITs; and 4) placed the bulk of the client’s assets into long-term investments with high fees and expenses although the client’s primary objective was income.

23352 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Suspension
Keyword(s): Customer Complaints; Client's Best Interest; Suitability; Fiduciary Duty
Standard(s) Violated: Article Article 3(a); 202; 201; 607; 606(b); Article 3(b); 703
Matter Type(s): Client Dissatisfaction
Decision Date: 12/28/2011
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct (“Standards”) when he failed to: 1) perform an investigation and analysis into the insurance needs of his clients prior to recommending that they purchase insurance policies; 2) perform a cash flow analysis regarding his client’s ability to pay the premiums for the insurance policies recommended by Respondent; and 3) present his insurance recommendations and ensure that the recommendations met his client’s expectations with respect to their ability to “premium offset” in five years.

27406 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Suspension
Keyword(s): Suitability; Misrepresentation; Client's Best Interest; Fiduciary Duty
Standard(s) Violated: Article Article 3(a); 4.3; 4.4; 4.5; 1.4; 2.1; Article 3(b); 6.5
Matter Type(s): Client Dissatisfaction
Decision Date: 09/10/2013
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he: 1) relied on a non-guaranteed 12% gross rate of return in a Variable Universal Life (“VUL”) Insurance policy illustration to determine how long the product would remain in force; 2) recommended that his client purchase a VUL with a limited no lapse period when the client’s goal was life insurance paid up for life; and 3) told a client that a VUL would almost triple her money.

Page 1 of 1 , 3 Items in Total