- August 20, 2024
- Jeffrey Matthews Financial Group
(CRD#: 41282/SEC#: 8-49352) The brokerage firm is located in Florham Park, NJ and it’s President/CEO is Jeffrey Ross Halpert.
Allegations of Misconduct
irm failed to establish a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with fair pricing rules. The firm failed to establish, maintain and enforce a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with fair pricing rules. In Addition, the firm’s supervisory reviews of prices focused only on the size of mark-up and mark-down percentages, and the firm did not have any system to determine the appropriateness of the prevailing market price to which those mark-up and mark-down p
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in July 2024, without admitting or denying the finds, the firm consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that it charged unfair prices in corporate and municipal bond transaction. The findings stated that the firm failed to consider the appropriate pricing information, as identified in FINA and MSRB Rules, to determine the prevailing market price. Instead, when selling to customers, the firm in all cases used its own cost to determine the prevailing market price, even when its cost was not contemporaneous. And when purchasing from customers, the firm in all cases used inter-dealer bid or offer quotations to determine the prevailing market price. The firm charged unfair prices on 98 bond transactions which, collectively, caused customers to pay $112,932.02 in excess costs.
The findings also stated that the fercentages applied.
The firm was censured, fined $125,000, order to pay $112,932.02, plus interest, in restitution to customers, and required to certify that it has remediated the issues identified in the AWC and implemented a reasonably designed supervisory system, including WSPS.
In addition, the firm has five other disclosures:
• July 2024—“ Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that it failed to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 15I-1(A)(1) (Regulation Best Interest or Reg BI).” The firm was censured and fined $35,000.
• August 2009—“ NJ Dept of Banking alleged a failure to report the execution of AWCs between FINRA and Jeffrey Matthews Financial Group within 30 days of execution and a failure to disclosure the AWCs on 2009 insurance applications.” The firm was fined $1,000 and ordered to Cease and Desist.
• January 2009—“ The Jeffrey Matthews Financial Group failed to provide written notification disclosing to its customers the correct lowest yield-to-call in municipal securities transactions.” The firm was censured/fined $10,000.
• August 2005—“ NASD Conduct Rules 3010 ad 2110- Respondent firm’s supervisory system and procedures were not reasonably designed to ensure that the required written consent was obtained before pre-registration searches on web CRD and that the firm retained the required documentation.” The firm was censured/fined $75,000.
• December 1997—“ Effected 3 transaction in account prior to registration and filed false application by failure to report said transactions.” The firm was ordered to cease and desist and fined $1,000.
For a copy of The Jeffrey Matthews Financial Group’s FINRA BrokerCheck 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 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.