• February 3, 2024
• Concorde Investment Services

Gary Thomas Hughes (CRD# 1700976) is a registered investment advisor at Hughes Wealth Management Incorporated in Hermosa Beach, CA. He was previously a registered broker.

 

Broker’s Background

He entered the securities industry in 1987 and previously worked with Yaeger Securities, Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.; BA Investment Services, Inc.; United Pacific Securities, Inc.; Brokers Transaction Services, Inc.; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Metlife Securities Inc.; UBOC Investment Services, Inc.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Pension Planners Securities, Inc.; Questar Asset Management, Inc.; Arque Capital, Ltd.; and Concorde Asset Managements, LLC.

 

Current and Past Allegations of Conduct Leading to Investment Loss

According to publicly available records released by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in April of 2023, Gary Hughes became the subject of a customer dispute alleging, “unsuitable recommendations, common law fraud, breach of contract, negligent supervision, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, violation of California Securities Act, and elder abuse in relation to investment made in February of 2020.” The damage amount requested is $150,000 and the customer dispute is still pending.

 

In addition, Gary Hughes has been the subject of several other disclosures which include the following:

• July 2020—“ Complaint relates to the clients dissatisfaction with the product suspension of distributions in 2020, and is requesting a full refund from the product sponsor due to performance.” The customer dispute was denied.
• December 2013—“ COMPLIANT ALLEGING LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE AND POOR PERFORMANCE IN $105,000 INVESTMENT IN PATRIOT MINERALS ON 1/5/09.” The customer dispute was denied.
• September 2006—“ CLIENT ALLEGES THAT REPLACEMENT OF VARIABLE ANNUITY CONTRACT WAS UNSUITABLE.” The damage amount requested was $36,125.07 and the customer dispute settled for $36,125.00.
• April 2002—“ REVOCATION OF INSURANCE SALES LICENSE REPLACED WITH RESTRICTED LICENSE UNTIL 4/5/2005. ON 4/5/2005 I CAN APPLY TO REMOVE RESTRICTION.”
• July 1997—“ COUNT 1 STEAL WATER DISMISSED (9/2/97). COUNT 2 EMBEZZLEMENT CONVICTED 9/2/97-PROBATION 3 YEARS START 9/2/97 TO 11/23/98. FINE $648 PAID IN FULL 3/20/98. ON 2/4/99 EMBEZZLEMENT WAS DISMISSED AND MY PLEA CHANGE TO NOT GUILTY COUNT 2 EMBEZZLEMENT MISD 11/23/98 PROBATION TERMINATED – 2/4/99 COUNT 2 EMBEZZLEMENT MISD – DISMISSED.” The broker’s comment stated, “WHILE UNEMPLOYED IN JULY 1997, I TRIED TO SELL A LIST OF AMES AND PHONE NUMBERS TO AN UNDERCOVER POLICE OFFICER (HAWTHORNE, CALIF POLICE DEPT) WHO REPRESENTED A LIST BROKERAGE FIRM. I WAS ARRESTED BY SAME OFFICER.”

 

For a copy of Gary Huges’ 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.

 

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.