• August 17, 2023
• Geneos Wealth Management

Edward Barfield (CRD#: 4257082) is a registered Broker and Investment Adviser at Geneos Wealth Management, Inc. in Kirkwood, MO.

Broker’s Background

He entered the securities industry in 2000 and previously worked for Cetera Advisor Networks, LLC; Summit Financial Group, Inc.; Summit Brokerage Services, Inc.; OneAmerica Securities, Inc.; Park Avenue Securities, Inc.; and Fort Washington Brokerage Services, Inc.

Current And Past Allegations Of Conduct

According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in July 2023, a customer dispute was filed against Edward Barfield. The allegation states, “Client alleges that Representative made an unsuitable recommendation of a fixed whole life insurance product in 2020 and that the representative created a tax liability in the transferring of her IRA account to a revocable living trust account.” The customer dispute is pending. Damages of $292,000 are requested.

In addition, Edward Barfield has been the subject of eight other disclosures, including customer complaints, regulatory disclosures and a lien:

• October 2018 — A tax judgment/lien of $78,080.80 was levied against Edward Barfield.
• January 2017 — “The complainants allege that the registered representative made unsuitable recommendations and failed to disclose information in connection with the sale of a variable annuity and variable universal life insurance policy.” The customer dispute was withdrawn.
• July 2015 — “RESPONDENT MADE UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS.” The State of Missouri sanctioned Edward Barfield by ordering restitution of $4,000.
• February 2011 — “ALLEGATIONS ALLEGE THAT THE COMPLAINANTS WERE MISLED INTO USING 401K MONIES FOR THE PURCHASE LIFE INSURANCE THAT RESULTED IN THE PURCHASE OF TWO LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES AND NOT ENOUGH MONEY TO SUPPORT THE ANNUAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS.” The customer dispute was closed with no action.
• October 2010 — “ALLEGATIONS CONTEND THAT THE 1035 EXCHANGE OF A VARIABLE ANNUITY REDUCED THE COMPLAINANT’S GUARANTEED RETIREMENT INCOME AND THAT THE INVESTMENT STRATEGY RECOMMENDED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE, AND ULTIMATELY EMPLOYED BY THE COMPLAINANT, WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND RESULTED IN UNNECESSARY LOSSES.” The customer dispute was settled for $12,401.05
• August 2010 — “CLIENT IS CLAIMING BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE FOR FAILURE TO PAY DEATH CLAIM ON A POLICY THE REP SOLD THEM. REP WAS NO LONG EMPLOYEE OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY AS OF JUNE 1, 2003 POLICIES LAPSED BEFORE THE DEATH OF THE INSURED ON DECEMBER 22, 2003.” The customer dispute was denied.
• May 2010 — “COMPLAINANT CLAIMS THE VARIABLE ANNUITY THAT WAS PURCHASED IN JUNE OF 2008 WAS UNSUITABLE.” The customer dispute was settled for $55,000.
• July 2009 — “THE COMPLAINANTS ALLEGE THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE MADE BY THE REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE AND ULTIMATELY TRANSACTED ON 6/29/2007 WERE UNSUITABLE AND EXPOSED THEM TO UNNECESSARY MARKET RISKS AND TAX CONSEQUENCES.” The customer dispute was settled for $32,000.

For a copy of Edward Barfield’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.

We Help Investors Recover Investment Losses

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 age, tax status, time horizon, liquidity needs, and risk tolerance; a client’s other investments, financial situation and needs, investment objectives, and any other information disclosed by the customer should also be considered.

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 mwolper@wolperlawfirm.com.