- July 10, 2021
- Signature Securities
Philip Beviano, Jr. (CRD#: 2516187) is a dually registered Broker and Investment Advisor at Signature Securities in Boca Raton, FL. He entered the securities industry in 1994 and previously worked for Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.; Citicorp Investment Services; Dreyfus Service Corporation; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.; Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.; E.C. Capital, LTD., Ash & Co., Inc.; Josephthal Lyon & Ross, Inc.; Royce Investment Group, Inc.; and GKN Securities Corp.
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in February 2021, a customer dispute was filed against Philip Beviano, Jr. The FINRA allegation states, “Client alleges Financial Loss due to misleading statements and faulty investment advice.” Damages of $130,000 are sought. The customer dispute is pending.
In addition, Philip Beviano, Jr. has been the subject of ten more customer complaints, including two that remain pending, including the following:
● January 2021–”Client alleges breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, material misrepresentations and omission and negligence.” Damages of $86,000 are sought. This customer dispute is pending.
● November 2020–”Client alleges breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, material misrepresentations and negligence.” Damages of $65,000 are sought, and the customer dispute is pending.
● November 2012–”ALLEGES THAT DURING THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2008 THROUGH JANUARY 20, 2009, FA ENGAGED IN UNSUITABILITY, MISREPRESENTATION, FRAUD, NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, VIOLATION OF THE 1934 SECURITIES ACT AND RULE 10B-5 AND VIOLATION OF FINRA RULES REGARDING SECURITY TRANSACTIONS IN CLAIMANT’S ACCOUNT.” The customer dispute was settled for $1,500.
● October 2011–”BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.” This customer dispute was settled for $10,939.
● July 2010–”FRAUD, NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, SUITABILITY, EXCESSIVE TRADING, FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS, MISREPRESENTATION, BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING AND VIOLATION OF FINRA RULES FROM DECEMBER 2007 TO DECEMBER 2009.” The customer dispute was settled for $48,000.
● December 2009–”BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.” The customer dispute was settled for $1,826.
● November 2009–”NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, CHURNING, SUITABILITY, MISREPRESENTATION, VIOLATION OF FINRA RULES.” The customer dispute was settled for $10,000.
● March 2009–”CLIENT ALLEGED THAT THE PURCHASE OF A VARIABLE ANNUITY WAS MISREPRESENTED. 2007.” The customer dispute was denied.
● May 2008–”CLAIMANT ALLEGES THAT REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE RECOMMENDED THAT HE PURCHASE UNSUITABLE AUCTION RATE SECURITIES. THE REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE, PHILIP BEVIANO, HOWEVER, DID NOT PURCHASE THE SECURITIES THAT CLAIMANT IS COMPLAINING ABOUT. THE SECURITIES THAT CLAIMANT IS COMPLAINING ABOUT WERE PURCHASED YEARS BEFORE CLAIMANT EVER BECAME A CLIENT OF PHILIP BEVIANO AND MR. BEVIANO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PURCHASE WHATSOEVER.” The customer dispute was denied.
● MArch 2005–”CLIENT ALLEGED “I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE TYPE OF ACCOUNTS THAT MR. BEVIANO WAS RECOMMENDING AND WAS NEVER EXPLAINED WITH DETAIL HOW THESE ACCOUNTS WORKED”. CLIENT ALSO ALLEGED “[MR. BEVIANO] ALSO INVESTED THE FUNDS IN A VERY AGGRESSIVE PORTFOLIO DISREGARDING MY INITIAL REQUEST.”“ The customer dispute was denied.
For a copy of Philip Beviano, Jr.’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.
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 email@example.com.