- November 6, 2023
- Creative One Wealth
Curtis B. Wilson (CRD#: 1517272) is a registered investment advisor representative at CreativeOne Wealth, LLC in Tulsa, OK.
He entered the securities industry in 1986. He previously worked for Beam Asset Managements, LLC; Securities America, Inc.; LPL Financial, LLC; Summit Investment Group, LLC; FWC Wealth Advisors LLP; Geneos Wealth Managements, Inc.; Merril Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.; and Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc.
Current and Past Allegations of Conduct Leading to Investment Loss
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Curtis Wilson was the subject of a customer dispute alleging, “representative’s option-based trading strategy was not suitable after losses were incurred. Customer also alleges that risks associated with options trading were not adequately disclosed.” The damage amount requested was $484,905.26, and the dispute settled for $250,000.
In addition, Curtis Wilson has been the subject of three other disclosures, which include the following:
- October 2020—“Failure to execute trades in a timely manner.” The damage amount requested was $25,000, and the dispute settled for $25,000.
- October 2017—Financial Disclosure “Compromise.” Disposition: Satisfied/Released.
- September 2000—“DENVER MEACHAM III, A CO-TRUSTEE ALLEGED UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTIONS IN THE CUSTOMER TRUST.” The customer dispute was denied.
For a copy of Curtis Wilson’s disclosure report, 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 SEC has closely scrutinized options strategies offered to retail clients because these strategies are often misunderstood by both the financial professionals that work at brokerage firms and the clients that invest. This is due to a lack of education, training and enforced compliance policies and procedures.
In the case of In re UBS Financial Services, Inc., 2022 SEC LEXIS 1620, (SEC June 29, 2022), UBS sold the UBS Yield Enhancement Strategy (YES) to its retail clients as an income producing options strategy. The strategy precipitously declined, and its risk disclosures were incomplete and inaccurate. The SEC determined that UBS “provided its financial advisors with inadequate training or dedicated supervisory oversight in this complex options trading strategy during the relevant time period, as a result certain of them did not understand the significant downside risk.” “Certain financial advisors and clients expressed surprise by these losses…” In finding that UBS violated securities laws, it agreed to penalties, disgorgement and interest of more than $31MM.
In the case of In re Frontier Wealth Management, LLC and Shawn Sokolowsky, 2021 SEC LEXIS 2577, *2-4 (SEC Sep. 3, 2021), the SEC initiated an enforcement action against Frontier for violation of securities laws, stemming from the use of a complex options strategy. The SEC specifically determined that Frontier “gave its IARs broad autonomy on client investments” but “failed to adopt or implement an adequate supervisory system for determining whether IARs had developed a reasonable belief that their advice was in the best interest of each client…Frontier IARs did not assign any Frontier supervisor the responsibility of reviewing, monitoring, or approving Frontier IAR recommendations or IAR representations to clients and potential clients concerning complex financial products like the Feeder Fund.”
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.