• August 29, 2022
• Centaurus Financial

Valentino Scott (CRD#: 1497615) is a dually registered Broker and Investment Advisor at Centaurus Financial, Inc. in West Hills, CA.

Broker’s Background

He entered the securities industry in 1986 and previously worked for Montano Securities Corp.; Fortis Investors, Inc.; and Pruco Securities Corp.

Current And Past Allegations Of Conduct Leading To Investment Loss

According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in July 2022, a customer dispute was filed against Valentino Scott. The allegation states, “The customers allege that the Registered Representative misrepresented an unsuitable investment. No dates of alleged activity were disclosed in the Statement of Claim.”

In addition, Valentino Scott has been the subject of eight customer complaints, one employment disclosure and one regulatory event:

• March 2022 — “During the period October 2013 to the present, the customers allege that the Registered Representative made poor recommendations, misrepresented and overconcentrated the customer’s accounts in unsuitable, illiquid and risky investments.” The customer dispute is pending.
• March 2020 — “During the period 2014 through 2020, the customer alleges that the Registered Representative recommended and over concentrated their account(s) in unsuitable investments.” The customer dispute was settled for $110,000.
• November 2010 — “DEATH BENEFIT WAS MISREPRESENTED ON VARIABLE ANNUITY POLICIES PURCHASED IN 1999.” The customer was awarded damages of $39,916.
• June 2008 — “SOLD CUSTOMER INAPPROPRIATE CLASS OF MUTUAL FUNDS, FAILED TO DISCLOSE $ LOSS IN SELLING GNMA SECURITIES.” The customer dispute was denied.
• May 2008 — “4/4/07 TO 5/1/08 CUSTOMER PURCHASED A VARIABLE ANNUITY THAT WAS NOT SUITABLE, CERTAIN PRODUCT FEATURES WERE MISREPRESENTED AND REPRESENTATIVE FAILED TO REALLOCATAED SUBACCOUNTS TO A MORE CONSERVATIVE POSITION AS EXPRESSED BY THE CUSTOMER.” The customer dispute was closed with no action.
• January 2008 — “CLIENT ALLEGES THAT HE WAS UNAWARE OF FEES FOR 7% INCOME RIDER, AND ALLEGES HE WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS A VARIABLE ANNUITY.” The customer dispute was closed with no action.
• November 2002 — “UNINFORMED AS TO SURRENDER CHARGE AND HOLDING PERIOD OF CONTRACT WITH MANULIFE FINANCIAL, INC. – VENTURE III.” The customer dispute was denied.
• June 1998 — “THERE WAS NOT ANY IN FEBRUARY, 1988 NONE.” Valentino Scott was discharged by Prudential Insurance Company of America.
• July 1987 — “IMPROPER USE OF MONEY COLLECTED FROM INSUREDS: [THIRD PARTY] $556.61 [THIRD PARTY] $2,992 .79 [THIRD PARTY] 3,618.24 [THIRD PARTY] 3,143.87 [THIRD PARTY] $2,375.88 [THIRD PARTY] 5,676.97 [THIRD PARTY]1,380.30 [THIRD PARTY] 2,069.44.” The California Department of Insurance sanctioned Valentino Scott with revocation/expulsion/denial.

For a copy of Valentino Scott’s FINRA BrokerCheck, 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, P.A. represents investors nationwide in securities litigation and arbitration on a contingency fee basis.  Matt Wolper, the Managing Principal of the Wolper Law Firm, P.A., 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.