- June 7, 2020
- D.A. Davidson
Gregory Tucker a/k/a Greg Tucker (CRD # 501274) is a Financial Advisor at D.A. Davidson in Des Moines, Iowa. Gregory Tucker a/k/a Greg Tucker has been in the securities industry since 1976 and previously worked at Ruan Securities Corp.
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), since 2016, Gregory Tucker a/k/a Greg Tucker has been the subject of eight (8) customer complaints, alleging sales practice misconduct:
• April 2020—”Client alleges RR recommended purchase and hold of unsuitable bonds. Client did purchase only one of the allegedly unsuitable bonds for about $43k in January 2012, which was investment grade at purchase. Client transferred the bond away from the Firm about two weeks after purchase in February 2012 with a small unrealized gain.” Alleged damages are $500,000 and the matter remains pending.
• April 2020—”Client alleges RR recommended purchase and hold of unsuitable bonds and unsuitable concentration. Client did purchase one allegedly unsuitable bond, which was investment-grade rated at purchase in April 2012 and when it transferred from the Firm the following year in June 2013 with a net unrealized gain. Client’s two accounts were profitable while at the Firm.” Alleged damages are $1 million and the matter remains pending.
• November 2019—”Claimants allege that RR breached a fiduciary duty by failing to follow their investment objectives and recommending unsuitable securities from 2010 to 2016.” The matter was settled for $215,000.
• November 2018—”From 2009 to 2018, claimants allege that the Registered Representative failed to follow their risk-tolerance and growth investment objectives, recommended unsuitable and risky investments, failed to disclose and misrepresented material facts, and charged excessive mark-ups and mark-downs.” Alleged damages are $10 million and the matter remains pending.
• November 2016—”Claimant purchased various bonds in her brokerage accounts; initially in her individual account which later transitioned into her trust account. Claimant alleges her account was mishandled, including that it held bonds that were unsuitable and overly concentrated, and that her account was excessively traded. Claimant is seeking unspecified damages, though initial calculations reflect that overall her accounts were net profitable. For the time period March 2009 through September 2016.” The matter was settled for $377,250.
• February 2016—”Tucker was a subject of the customer’s complaint against his member firm that asserted the following causes of action: fraudulent misrepresentation; fraudulent concealment; negligent misrepresentation; negligence; negligent supervision; negligent communications with Claimants; negligent provision of investment advice; violation of the Securities Act of Nebraska; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of contract.” The case went to arbitration and the panel awarded $950,151 to the customers.
For a copy of Gregory Tucker a/k/a Greg Tucker’s CRD, click https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/501274#disclosuresSection
Financial advisors have a legal and regulatory obligation to recommend only suitable investments that are appropriate for their clients’ needs and objectives. Their employing brokerage firm has a legal and regulatory obligation to supervise the Financial Advisors’ sales practices and dealings with clients. To the extent any of these duties are breached, the customer may be entitled to a recovery of his or her investment losses.
Reasonable basis suitability requires that a recommended investment or investment strategy be suitable or appropriate for at least some investors. Reasonable basis suitability requires an advisor to conduct adequate due diligence so that he or she can determine the risks and rewards of the investment or investment strategy.
Quantitative suitability requires a brokerage firm or financial advisor with actual or de facto control over a customer’s account to have a reasonable basis for believing that a series of recommended transactions – even if suitable when viewed in isolation – is not excessive and unsuitable for the customer when taken together in light of the customer’s investment profile. No single test defines excessive activity, but factors such as the turnover rate, the cost-equity ratio, and the use of in-and-out trading in a customer’s account may provide a basis for a finding that a member or associated person has violated the quantitative suitability obligation.
Customer-specific suitability requires that a member or associated person have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation is suitable for a particular customer based on that customer’s investment profile. Among the criteria that a financial advisor must evaluate to satisfy his or her customer-specific suitability obligations include the investor’s:
• Other investments
• Financial situation and needs
• Tax status
• Investment objectives
• Time horizon
• Liquidity needs
• Risk tolerance
• Any other information disclosed by the customer
The Wolper Law Firm represents investors nationwide in securities litigation and arbitration on a contingency fee basis. Matt Wolper, the Managing Principal of the Wolper Law Firm, is a trial lawyer who has handled hundreds of securities cases during his career involving a wide range of products, strategies and securities. Prior to representing investors, he was a partner with a national law firm, where he represented some of the largest banks and brokerage firms in the world in securities matters. We can be reached at 800.931.8452 or by email at firstname.lastname@example.org.