Two Customer Complaints Filed Against Former Cetera Advisors Financial Advisor Todd Ray Anderson
Todd Ray Anderson (CRD#: 1896352) is a dually registered Broker and Investment Advisor at Benchmark Investments, Inc., in Tucson, AZ. He entered the securities industry in 1988 and previously worked for Cetera Advisors, LLC; Geneos Wealth Management, Inc.; Hornor, Townsend & Kent, Inc.; NYLife Securities, Inc.; Metropolitan Insurance Company; and MetLife Securities, Inc.
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in September 2020, a customer dispute was filed against Todd Ray Anderson. The allegation states, “Claimant alleges their registered representative made unsuitable investments.” The complaint was settled for $7,500.
In addition, Todd Ray Anderson has been the subject of three customer complaints, including one that remains pending, including the following:
● July 2020–”Customer alleges unsuitable investment recommendations made between 2010-2013 and other causes of action.” The customer dispute is pending.
● September 2019–”The representative was terminated based on: 1) failure to follow the Firm’s written instruction that he obtain pre-approval for all mutual fund purchases; 2) failure to follow the Firm’s procedure requiring pre-approval of outside business activities; and 3) a customer allegation that the representative executed an unauthorized trade.” Todd Ray Anderson was separated from Cetera Advisors, LLC.
● January 2018–A tax judgment/lien was filed against Todd Ray Anderson in the amount of $110,232.26.
● June 2017–A tax judgment/lien in the amount of $84,613.64 was filed against Todd Ray Anderson.
● February 2017–A tax judgment/lien was filed in the amount of $777,273.98 was filed against Todd Ray Anderson.
● February 2017–A tax judgment/lien was filed in the amount of $365,148.89 was filed against Todd Ray Anderson.
● June 2010–A tax judgment/lien of $269,296.00 was filed against Todd Ray Anderson.
● May 2009–”CLIENTS ALLEGE THAT REPRESENTATIVE MISREPRESENTED THE FEATURES OF A VARIABLE ANNUITY RIDERS.” The customer dispute was settled for $408,704.
● May 2000–”THE CUSTOMER STATES WITH REGARD TO A VARIABLE ANNUITY PURCHASED IN SEPTEMBER 1997, THAT “THERE WAS NO UNDERSTANDING SHE WOULD BE CHARGED (SURRENDER CHARGES) FOR REQUESTING ANY MONIES FROM THE ACCOUNT.” THE CUSTOMER ALSO ALLEGES UPON BEING INSTRUCTED TO WRITE A $900.00 CHECK FROM THEIR MONEY MARKET MUTUAL FUND ACCOUNT, MR. ANDERSON “NEGLECTED TO LET US KNOW THERE WOULD BE FIDUCIARY FEES, TAX FEES, ETC.” THE CHECK SUBSEQUENTLY BOUNCED. THE CUSTOMERS REQUEST COMPENSATION FOR TAXES, AMOUNT OF LOST INVESTMENTS, ONE YEAR’S PREMIUMS, AND SURRENDER CHARGES.” Damages of $7,900 were requested; the customer dispute was denied.
For a copy of Todd Ray Anderson’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 agee, 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.