- August 1, 2022
- Stifel Nicolaus & Company
Mark Stevenson (CRD#: 436079) is a dually registered Broker and Investment Advisor at Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. in New York, NY.
He entered the securities industry in 1974 and previously worked for Barclays Capital, Inc.; Lehman Brothers, Inc.; Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb, Inc.; White, Weld & Co., Inc.
Current And Past Allegations Of Conduct Leading To Investment Loss
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in May 2022, a customer dispute against Mark Stevenson was filed alleging, “Clients allege lack of oversight by branch management in connection with the clients’ suitability and excessive trading claims against their financial advisor, and clients allege losses from May 2021 through March 2022.”
In addition, Mark Stevenson has been the subject of eight customer complaints, including the following:
- May 2014 — “CLIENT ALLEGES CLAIMS DEALING WITH AUTHORIZATION, SUITABILITY, FRAUD, AND SUPERVISION REGARDING AN OPTION POSITION OPENED IN DECEMBER 2012, AND CLAIMS ALLEGING CHURNING AND MISMANAGEMENT OF PROFITABLE EQUITIES AND FIXED INCOME ACCOUNTS.” The customer dispute was settled for $1.5M.
- January 2014 –”CLIENT ALLEGES CLAIMS DEALING WITH AUTHORIZATION, SUITABILITY, AND SUPERVISION REGARDING AN OPTION SPREAD POSITION OPENED IN DECEMBER 2012.” The customer dispute was settled for $800,000.
- July 2005 — “[CUSTOMER] ALLEGED THAT MR. STEVENSON FAILED TO ADEQUATELY SUPERVISE ITS INVESTMENT REPRESENTATIVE.” The customer dispute was settled for $5.6M.
- October 1996 — “ALLEGATIONS OF FAILURE TO SUPERVISE. ALLEGED DAMAGES OF $2,000,000.00 PLUS.” The customer dispute was dismissed.
- November 1992 — “CUSTOMER ALLEGED BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTIONS AND UNSUITABILITY AGAINST BROKER. THE ONLY ALLEGATION MADE AGAINST MR. STEVENSON WAS FAILURE TO SUPERVISE. ALLEGED DAMAGES OF $125,000.” The customer dispute was settled for $50,000.
- April 1992 — “[CUSTOMER] ALLEGED THAT HE INCURRED DAMAGES OF $107,919 DUE TO THE FOLLOWING ACTS OF RESPONDENTS: EXCESSIVE TRADING, MISREPRESENTATIONS, AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY. HE ALSO SOUGHT ATTORNEYS FEES, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, MARGIN INTEREST AND COMMISSION OF $172,000 AND OTHER UNSPECIFIED DAMAGES. THEREFORE THE TOTAL DAMAGES SOUGHT WERE BETWEEN $250K AND $300K.” The customer dispute was resolved by damages granted of $25,000.
- January 1992 — “FAILURE TO SUPERVISE.” The customer dispute was resolved by damages granted of $5,000.
- November 1989 – “Not Provided.” The customer dispute was resolved by damages granted of $559,327.
For a copy of Mark Stevenson’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, P.A. represents investors nationwide in securities litigation and arbitration on a contingency fee basis. Matt Wolper, the Managing Principal of the Wolper Law Firm, P.A., 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.