- March 15, 2020
- Merrill Lynch
Jacquin Fink (CRD # 207807) was a Financial Advisor at Merrill Lynch in New York, NY. Jacquin Fink has been in the securities industry since 1968 and worked for Merrill Lynch the entirety of his career.
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Jacquin Fink has eleven disclosed customer complaints against him, alleging sales practice misconduct. Among the complaints against Jacquin Fink are the following:
• February 2020—”The Customer alleges unsuitable investment recommendations.” The alleged damages are $43,434 and the matter remains pending.
• January 2019—”The Customer alleges unsuitable investment recommendations.” The matter was settled for $800,000.
• January 2018—”The customer alleges unsuitable investments.” The matter was settled for $263,000.
• November 2017—”The Customer alleges unsuitable investment recommendations and omission of material facts from December 2007 to October 2016.” The matter was settled for $75,000.
• July 2016—”The Customer, through her Attorney-in-Fact, alleges unsuitable investment recommendations from November 2014 to July 2016.” The matter was settled for $205,732.
• April 2016—”The Customers allege unsuitable investment recommendations, excessive trading and misrepresentation and omission of material facts from October 2013 to January 2016. The matter was settled for $402,500.
• November 2015—”The Customers allege unsuitable investment recommendations from October 2012 to August 2014.” The matter was settled for $106,092.
• September 2011—”THE CUSTOMER ALLEGES AGRESSIVE TRADING AND MISREPRESENTATION FROM FEBRUARY 2005 TO DECEMBER 2010. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ARE NOT SPECIFIED.” The matter was settled for $1.72 million.
• July 2010—”THE CUSTOMER ALLEGES EXCESSIVE TRADING, UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND UNAUTHORIZED TRADING FROM JANUARY 2005 TO APRIL 2010.” The matter was settled for $200,000.
For a copy of Jacquin Fink’s CRD, click https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/207807#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
Failure by a financial advisor to adhere to these requirements is evidence of negligence or, worse, investment fraud. If you as the investor can establish, at a minimum, negligent misconduct, you may be entitled to recovery your investment losses.
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 email@example.com.