• July 17, 2023
• Landolt Securities

Bret Schaefer (CRD#: 2577117) is a Broker and previously registered Investment Advisor at Landolt Securities, Inc. in Antioch, IL.

Broker’s Background

He entered the securities industry in 1995 and previously worked for Woodbury Financial Services, Inc.; Landolt Securities, Inc.; Ausdal Financial Partners, Inc.; Linsco/Private Partners, Inc.; Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.; B.C. Ziegler & Company; American Express Financial Advisors, Inc.; and IDS Life Insurance Company.

Current And Past Allegations Of Conduct Leading To Investment Loss

According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in June 2023, a customer dispute against Bret Schaefer was settled for $53,114. The allegation states, “Customer complains variable annuity purchased in 2021 was unsuitable.”

In addition, Bret Schaefer has been the subject of seven other customer complaints, including the following: 

• December 2021 — “Customers allege financial professional misrepresented the time horizon of alternative investments purchased between 2015 and 2019.” The customer dispute was settled for $30,000.
• June 2021 — “Personal representative of client’s estate alleges unauthorized trading and questions the suitability of certain alternative product recommendations.” The customer dispute was settled for $510,000.
• May 2021 — “Loss of $200,000 in Baakan.” The customer dispute was denied.
• February 2017 — “UNSUITABLE VA INVESTMENT IN 2013.” The customer dispute was denied.
• July 2005 — “THE CLIENT ALLEGED FC MISREPRESENTED FEATURES, FEES AND EXPENSES OF VARIABLE ANNUITY FROM 3/17/2004 TO 3/14/2005. DAMAGES UNSPECIFIED, BUT BELIEVED TO BE GREATER THAN $5000.” The customer dispute was denied.
• August 2002 — “IN JUNE 2000 CLIENT PURCHASED A VARIABLE ANNUITY FOR $100,000 IN JULY THE CLIENT ADDED AN ADD’L $100,000 THE MONIES WERE ALLOCATED BETWEEN 4 VARIABLE INVESTMENT CHOICES CLIENT ALLEGES THAT MR. SCHAEFER MISREPRESENTED THE PRODUCT AND SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE MARKET RISK.” The customer dispute was closed with no action.
• January 2001 — “IN FEBRUARY 2000, CUSTOMER ROLLED OVER HIS RETIREMENT ACCOUNT INTO SEVEN DIVERSIFIED MUTUAL FUND PORTFOLIOS RANGING FROM LARGE CAP TO INTERNATIONAL SMALL CAP AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF MR. SOLOWICZ, AN INVESTMENT BROKER IN ZIEGLER’S APPLETON BRANCH OFFICE. MR. SCHAEFER WAS ASSIGNED THE ACCOUNT SHORTLY AFTER THE INITIAL RECOMMENDATION IN MARCH 2000. CUSTOMER ALLEGES THAT THE SUBSEQUENT MARKET DECLINE WAS DUE TO THE EXISTING PORTFOLIO EXCEEDING HIS RISK TOLERANCE.” The customer dispute was settled for $9,000.

 For a copy of Bret Schaefer’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.