- April 13, 2021
- Ausdal Financial Partners
Kurt Baldry (CRD#: 1568930) is a dually registered Investment Advisor and broker at Ausdal Financial Partners, Inc., in Northeast Ostego, MN. He entered the securities industry in 1987 and previously worked for Workman Securities Corporation, ING Financial Partners, Inc., Locust Street Securities, Inc., New England Securities, and AAL Distributors, Inc.
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in January 2021, there is a pending customer dispute against Kurt Baldry. The allegation states, “Client alleges unsuitable investments.” Damages of $200,000 are requested.
In addition, Kurt Baldry has been the subject of one customer complaints, including one that remain pending, including the following:
● December 2020–”Improper investment recommendations, Failure to perform adequate Due Diligence, and Unsuitable Investment recommendations made in December 2013.” Damages of $500,000 are sought, and the customer dispute remains pending.
For a copy of Kurt Baldry’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 firstname.lastname@example.org.