Financial Advisor Matthew Wilkes Subject of $2.6M Customer Dispute

Matthew Kenneth Wilkes (CRD#: 5409004) is a registered investment advisor at Greensview Wealth Management in Franklin, TN.

Broker’s Background

He entered the securities industry in 2007. He previously worked with Chase Investment Services Corp.; Natcity Investment, Inc.; PNC Investments; Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC; FSIC; Raymond James Financial Services Advisors, Inc; United Advisors Services, LLC; Trustfirst; and Greensview Wealth Management.

Current and Past Allegations of Conduct Leading to Investment Loss

According to publicly available records released by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in January 2024, Matt Wilkes became the subject of two customer disputes. The first alleging,” FA recommended unsuitable premium-financed life insurance policy and failed to properly explain its risks and then later made unsuitable recommendation to change insurance provider.” The damage amount requested is $2.6 million. The second customer dispute alleges, “in 2015, the FA recommended an unsuitable investment strategy in a premium-financed life insurance policy.” Both customer disputes are still pending.

In addition, Matt Wilkes has been the subject of one other customer dispute, which includes:

  • August 2015—“ Customer verbally alleged financial advisor did not properly represent the change in investment platform from Wealth (IFS) to Brokerage (Private Advisor Network) and how the change would impact the customer financially. (6/2/2015-8/13/2015).” The customer dispute settled for $25,378.11.

For a copy of Matthew Wilke’s SEC AdvisorInfo, 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.


Premium financing of life insurance policies involves securing a third-party loan to pay the premium of a life insurance policy.  With premium financing, the third-party lender pays the full premium amount as established by the life insurance company.  An interest rate is then assigned to the borrowed amount, which is paid by the insured to the third-party lender.  The loan is retired after a pre-determined period of time and, in a perfect world, the appreciation in cash value of the underlying life insurance policy is sufficient to retire the loan.  If either the interest rate rises to a level higher than projected or the policy performance is lower than projected, or both, an insured may receive a collateral call from the third-party lender.  If the collateral call cannot be met, the insured will be in default, prompting the third-party lender to cease making premium payments.  Premium financing adds a layer of complexity to an already complex life insurance policy, which is designed to provide risk mitigation and peace of mind.


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.



Attorney Matthew Wolper

Attorney Matthew WolperMatt Wolper is a trial lawyer who focuses exclusively on securities litigation and arbitration. Mr. Wolper has handled hundreds of securities matters nationwide before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), JAMS, and in state and federal court. Mr. Wolper has handled and tried cases involving complex financial products and strategies ranging from traditional stocks and bonds to options, margin and other securities-based lending products, closed/open-end mutual funds, structured products, hedge funds, and penny stocks. [Attorney Bio]