Financial Advisor H. Todd Roggen Subject of Eight Customer Disputes

• November 6, 2025
• Raymond James & Associates Inc

Todd Roggen (CRD#: 721463) is a registered financial advisor with Oneseven in Houston, TX.

Broker’s History

He entered the securities industry in 1980 and previously worked with Rotan Mosle, Inc.; Cowen & Co.; Cowen Securities, Inc.; Prudential Securities Incorporated; First Union Securities, Inc.; UBS Financial Services, Inc.; and Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.

Current and Past Allegations of Conduct Leading to Investment Loss

According to publicly available records released by the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in May 2025, H. Todd Roggen became the subject of a customer dispute where a client alleged,  “FA recommended 2 unsuitable private placement investments and improperly enticed him to make those investments. Allegation Activity dates: March 25, 2021 – March 24, 2025.” The customer dispute is still pending.

In addition, H. Todd Roggen has been the subject of seven other SEC AdvisorInfo Disclosures:

• October 2009—“ CLAIMANT ALLEGES THAT FA ROGGEN MADE MISREPRESENTATIONS AND UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE PURCHASE OF A LEHMAN PREFERRED STOCK OFFERING IN FEB. 2008.” The damage amount requested was $250,000.00 and the customer dispute settled for $90,000.00.
• October 2009—“ CLAIMANT ALLEGES THAT FA ROGGEN MADE MISREPRESENTATIONS AND UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE PURCHASE OF A LEHMAN PREFERRED STOCK OFFERING IN FEB. 2008.” The damage amount requested was $125,000.00 and the customer dispute settled for $40,000.00.
• June 2009—“ TIME FRAME: FEBRUARY 5, 2008 TO JUNE 23, 2009 THE CLIENT’S COUNCIL ALLEGES THAT THE LEHMAN PREFERRED STOCK WAS AN UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT BASED ON HER INVESTMENT GOALS. THE ATTORNEY FURTHER ALLEGES THAT THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR TOLD HIS CLIENT THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS “SOUND” , BACKED BY STRONG UNDERWRITING, WOULD COME BACK AND CARRIED LITTLE RISK.” The damage amount requested was $125,000.00 and the customer dispute was denied.
• November 2008—“ CLAIMANTS ALLEGE THAT FA ROGGEN MADE MISREPRESENTATIONS AND UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE LARGE PURCHASES OF A LEHMAN PREFERRED STOCK OFFERING IN FEBRUARY 2008.” The damage amount requested was $650,000.00 and the customer dispute settled for $195,000.00.
• May 2008—“ CLIENT ALLEGES THAT HE WAS MISLED REGARDING THE LIQUIDITY AND THE RISK INVOLVED. CLIENT FURTHER STATES THAT HE WAS SOLD A MONEY MARKET ACCOUNT (AUCTION RATE SECURITIES) THAT HAD 7 DAY LIQUIDITY, WAS FDA ISURED AND THE ONLY RISK ASSOCIATED WAS THAT THE CLIENT MIGHT NOT EARN INTEREST FROM TIME TO TIME. DAMAGES ESTIMATED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $5,000.” The damage amount requested was $5,000.00 and the customer dispute settled for $100,000.00
• April 2005—“ CLIENT ALLEGES UNSUITABILITY.” The damage amount requested was $52,000.00 and the customer dispute settled for $5,000.00.
• April 1987—“ MISREPRESENTATION,UNSUITABILITY,FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ALL INFORMATION REGARDING INVESTMENTS. $500,000.00 PLUS ATTORNEY FEES.” The damage amount requested was $75,000.00 and the amount awarded was $251,978.50.

For a copy of H. Todd Roggen’s SEC AdvisorInfo, click here.

Private Placement Offerings and Alternative Investments Aren’t Suitable for Everyone

Private placements have increased in popularity over the years as investment professionals attempt to capitalize on volatility experienced among publicly trades securities. Alternative investments are essentially any type of investment property that is not a stock, bond, or cash holding.  Private placements, such as DSTs, are often marketed and sold as safe and stable income producing vehicles that are not subject to the same market forces as publicly traded securities. While alternative investments open up the possibility of high returns, they are also high risk.  The reality is that both are speculative and do not have the same reporting requirements as publicly traded securities.  This means that they can often mask financial difficulties until it is too late.  Moreover, because they can be more illiquid, investors are often unable to sell their interests to third-parties before experiencing an investment loss.

FINRA Notice to Members 10-22 provides specific requirements that brokerages and financial professionals must undertake when conducting due diligence on privately held securities, including alternative investments, before recommending them to investors.  Moreover, the FINRA suitability rule requires that brokerages and financial professionals make both reasonable basis and customer specific suitability determinations prior to recommending securities to customers.

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.