David Francis Mickelson – and the firm that employs him or her – is regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).
If you are like most people, before you go out to dinner at a new restaurant, you probably take a quick look at the reviews. This makes sense; you are going to pay for an expensive dinner, and you need to be sure that you are getting a good value.
Yet, when choosing a financial advisor, many people fail to conduct this same level of due diligence. Before turning over access to your money, you need to be sure that you have found a financial advisor that you can trust. Here, our audit report, including details of allegations, complaints, and sanctions will help you decide whether or not to invest with David Francis Mickelson.
BrokerComplaints.com is currently investigating allegations related to David Francis Mickelson. We provide a free platform for investors to help them in their claims against negligent brokers and brokerage firms.
About David Mickelson
David Francis Mickelson is an Investment Adviser. David Francis Mickelson’s Central Registration Depository (CRD) number is 2187596 and the FINRA Profile can be found at – https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/2187596.
Click here to download a Detailed Audit Report for David Francis Mickelson.
David Francis Mickelson has previously been reprimanded and has disclosures and/or client dispute(s) listed at FINRA BrokerCheck.
Accusations and Disclosures
You can find below, a quick snapshot of David Francis Mickelson’s regulatory actions, arbitrations, and complaints.
DISCLOSURE 1 –
- Event Date: 4/11/2013
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: 2011027481901
- DocketNumberAAO: 2011027481901
- Initiated By: FINRA
- Allegations: MICKELSON WAS NAMED A RESPONDENT IN A FINRA COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT HE PARTICIPATED IN PRIVATE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS ASSOCIATION WITH HIS MEMBER FIRM WITHOUT PROVIDING PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED TRANSACTIONS OR HIS PROPOSED ROLE IN THEM IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE FIRM’S PROCEDURES. ON SEVERAL OF THE FIRM’S ANNUAL CERTIFICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRES, MICKELSON FALSELY REPRESENTED THAT HE HAD NOT ENGAGED IN PRIVATE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS. THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT MICKELSON ENGAGED IN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES FOR COMPENSATION OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS FIRM WITHOUT PROVIDING PROMPT WRITTEN NOTICE OF THESE ACTIVITIES TO THE FIRM AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FIRM’S PROCEDURES. THE COMPLAINT ALSO ALLEGES THAT MICKELSON FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO HIS FIRM THE EXISTENCE OF BROKERAGE ACCOUNTS AT OTHER BROKER-DEALERS, WHICH HE OR MEMBERS OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY OWNED OR OVER WHICH THEY EXERCISED CONTROL, INCLUDING IN ANNUAL CERTIFICATIONS HE SUBMITTED TO THE FIRM, AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FIRM’S PROCEDURES. MICKELSON ALSO FAILED TO DISCLOSE HIS AFFILIATION WITH HIS FIRM TO THE BROKER-DEALERS AT WHICH THE ACCOUNTS WERE HELD. THE COMPLAINT FURTHER ALLEGES THAT A PERSON ASSOCIATED WITH A MEMBER FIRM GENERALLY MAY NOT PURCHASE A NEW ISSUE IN ANY ACCOUNT IN WHICH SUCH PERSON HAS A BENEFICIAL INTEREST, WITH LIMITED EXCEPTIONS. MICKELSON WAS ALLOCATED AND PURCHASED SHARES OF A COMPANY DURING THE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING OF A COMPANY. MICKELSON WAS ASSOCIATED WITH A MEMBER FIRM AT THE TIME, AND NONE OF THE LIMITED EXCEPTIONS TO THE APPLICABLE RULE WERE MET. IN ADDITION, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT MICKELSON NEGLIGENTLY MADE UNTRUE STATEMENTS OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR OMITTED TO STATE MATERIAL FACTS IN COMMUNICATION WITH CUSTOMERS REGARDING THEIR INVESTMENTS IN A FUND. MOREOVER, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT IN CONTRAVENTION OF FIRM PROCEDURES, MICKELSON MAINTAINED WEBSITES THAT CONTAINED SECURITIES-RELATED COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC. THE WEBSITES WERE NOT PASSWORD-PROTECTED, BUT WERE FREELY ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. MICKELSON DID NOT DISCLOSE THE WEBSITES TO THE FIRM AND WERE NOT REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY A REGISTERED PRINCIPAL OF THE FIRM PRIOR TO USE. FURTHERMORE, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT MICKELSON ENGAGED IN MISLEADING COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC. THE CONTENT OF ONE WEBSITE MADE STATEMENTS THAT CREATED UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS BY USING MISLEADING, EXAGGERATED OR UNWARRANTED LANGUAGE, AND MADE INCOMPLETE DISCLOSURES IN ITS COMPARISONS. MICKELSON, WHILE REGISTERED WITH HIS FIRM, THROUGH HIS OUTSIDE COMPANY DISTRIBUTED TO POTENTIAL INVESTORS A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION THAT CONTAINED SECURITIES-RELATED COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC; THE CONTENT MADE STATEMENTS THAT CREATED UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS BY USING MISLEADING, EXAGGERATED OR UNWARRANTED LANGUAGE, AND MADE STATEMENTS AND CLAIMS THAT APPEAR INCOMPLETE AND OVERSIMPLIFIED. MICKELSON DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS PRESENTATION TO HIS FIRM, AND IT WAS NOT REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY A REGISTERED PRINCIPAL OF THE FIRM PRIOR TO USE. MICKELSON DISTRIBUTED TO POTENTIAL INVESTORS A BROCHURE THAT CONTAINED SECURITIES-RELATED COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC, AND THE CONTENT MADE STATEMENTS AND CLAIMS THAT APPEAR INCOMPLETE AND OVERSIMPLIFIED. MICKELSON DID NOT DISCLOSE THE BROCHURE TO THE FIRM AND IT WAS NOT REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY A REGISTERED PRINCIPAL OF THE FIRM PRIOR TO USE, AS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE FINRA RULE. THE COMPLAINT ALSO ALLEGES THAT MICKELSON SENT AND RECEIVED SECURITIES-RELATED EMAILS USING SOME EMAIL ACCOUNTS THAT WERE NOT APPROVED BY HIS FIRM. MICKELSON DID NOT ROUTINELY FORWARD TO THE FIRM ANY OF THE SECURITIES-RELATED EMAILS SENT OR RECEIVED BY ANY OF THE UNAPPROVED EMAIL ACCOUNTS. (CONT. IN COMMENT SECTION)
- Resolution: Decision & Order of Offer of Settlement
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Civil and Administrative Penalty(ies)/Fine(s)
- Sanction Details :: Amount: $125,000.00 Sanctions: Suspension
- Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: ALL CAPACITIES
- Duration: 18 MONTHS
- Start Date: 1/21/2014
- End Date: 7/20/2015
- Regulator Statement: (CONTINUED FROM ALLEGATIONS) MICKELSON DID NOT MAINTAIN THESE COMMUNICATIONS IN A FORMAT THAT COMPLIED WITH AN APPLICABLE SEC RULE; AND BY USING THESE EMAIL ACCOUNTS TO EXCHANGE SECURITIES-RELATED EMAILS, HE PREVENTED THE FIRM FROM ACCESSING THESE COMMUNICATIONS AND COMPLYING WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS TO REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR CUSTOMERS. MICKELSON’S CONDUCT PREVENTED THE FIRM FROM COMPLYING WITH ITS RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS. SETTLEMENT – MICKELSON SUBMITTED AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN WHICH HE WAS ASSESSED A DEFERRED FINE OF $125,000 AND SUSPENDED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY FINRA MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR 18 MONTHS. WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, MICKELSON CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT HE PARTICIPATED IN PRIVATE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS ASSOCIATION WITH HIS FIRM WITHOUT PROVIDING THE FIRM PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED TRANSACTIONS, HIS PROPOSED ROLE IN THEM OR THE SELLING COMPENSATION HE MAY RECEIVE FROM THE TRANSACTIONS. MICKELSON ALSO DID NOT RECEIVE HIS FIRM’S REQUISITE APPROVAL TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRANSACTIONS. THE FINDINGS STATED THAT ON FIRM ANNUAL CERTIFICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRES MICKELSON SUBMITTED, HE INCORRECTLY STATED THAT HE HAD NOT ENGAGED IN PRIVATE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS AWAY FROM THE FIRM WITHOUT THE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT’S PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL, AND FAILED TO DISCLOSE ALL OF HIS OUTSIDE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. MICKELSON FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO HIS FIRM BROKERAGE ACCOUNTS AT OTHER BROKER-DEALERS THAT HE, A FUND HE MANAGED, OR MEMBERS OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY OWNED OR OVER WHICH THEY EXERCISED CONTROL; AND IN ONE OF THESE ACCOUNTS, THAT HE IMPROPERLY PURCHASED SHARES IN AN INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING. MICKELSON ALSO DID NOT DISCLOSE HIS AFFILIATION WITH HIS FIRM TO THE BROKERDEALERS AT WHICH THE ACCOUNTS WERE HELD. MICKELSON’S FIRM’S WSPS REQUIRED THAT A REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE FORMALLY DISCLOSE TO THE FIRM’S COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WITH THE FIRM AND RECEIVE A WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE ACTIVITY BEFORE COMMENCING THE ACTIVITY, AND REQUIRED THAT AN ASSOCIATED PERSON MUST DISCLOSE TO THE FIRM’S COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT AND THE EXECUTING FIRM THAT THE ASSOCIATED PERSON OR MEMBER OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY INTENDS TO OPEN AN ACCOUNT AWAY FROM THE FIRM BEFORE OPENING THE ACCOUNT. THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT MICKELSON MAINTAINED WEBSITES THAT HE HAD NOT DISCLOSED TO HIS FIRM AND THAT WERE NOT REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY A REGISTERED PRINCIPAL OF THE FIRM PRIOR TO USE, AS REQUIRED BY THE FIRM’S WSPS. MICKELSON SENT AND RECEIVED SECURITIES-RELATED EMAILS USING SEVERAL EMAIL ACCOUNTS THAT HIS FIRM HAD NOT APPROVED. THE FIRM HAD APPROVED MICKELSON’S USE OF EMAIL AT A PARTICULAR DOMAIN FOR HIS REGISTERED INVESTMENT ADVISER BUSINESS, WITH THE INSTRUCTION THAT ALL SECURITIES-RELATED CORRESPONDENCE WOULD GO THROUGH HIS FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT. MICKELSON DID NOT ROUTINELY FORWARD TO THE FIRM ANY OF THE SECURITIES-RELATED EMAILS SENT OR RECEIVED USING HIS EMAIL ACCOUNTS. BY USING EMAIL ACCOUNTS TO EXCHANGE SECURITIES-RELATED EMAILS AND FAILING TO EITHER FORWARD THE COMMUNICATIONS TO HIS FIRM OR OTHERWISE MAINTAIN THE COMMUNICATIONS IN A FORMAT THAT COMPLIED WITH SEC RULE 17A-4(F), MICKELSON PREVENTED HIS FIRM FROM ACCESSING THE COMMUNICATIONS AND COMPLYING WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS TO REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE AND THEIR CUSTOMERS AND ITS RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.
- Broker Comment: THE ALLEGATIONS SURROUND THE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS THAT WHILE SECURITIES LICENSED, I WAS ALSO MANAGING UNDER MY FIRMS INDEPENDENT RIA, A MICRO-CAP REG. D FUND PLUS WAS ALSO MANAGING MY FAMILY’S FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. MY BROKER DEALER (BD), AT THE TIME, WAS AWARE OF THESE ACTIVITIES BUT INFORMED ME THEY WERE NOT GOING TO SUPERVISE THESE ACTIVITIES. THEREFORE, MY BD DID NOT RECEIVE FROM ME WEBSITES, EMAILS, ACCOUNT STATEMENTS AND TRADE DATA OF THE FUND AND FLP ACTIVITIES. THIS INTERPRETATION OF SECURITIES RULES WAS SUPPORTED BY ADVICE I RECEIVED FROM MY SECURITIES ATTORNEY. WHEN FINRA BEGAN TO AUDIT MY OPERATIONS IN MAY OF 2011, THEY FOUND THIS ARRANGEMENT TO BE IN VIOLATION OF FINRA RULES. I HAD NOT DONE ANY SECURITIES BUSINESS SINCE 2009 SO I IMMEDIATELY RESIGNED FROM FINRA ASSOCIATION IN MAY 2011. PLEASE ALSO NOTE THESE FACTS, IN MY OPINION: – NONE OF THE FINRA ALLEGATIONS ARE VIOLATIONS OF MORAL TURPITUDE. – NO CLIENT OR INVESTOR COMPLAINED OR WAS CAUSED ANY HARM. – MY BD HAD A POLICY OF NOT SUPERVISING ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED UNDER MY FIRM’S INDEPENDENT RIA. THEREFORE, I WAS OPERATING IN GOOD FAITH UNAWARE OF THE BREWING FINRA REACTION. – THE FINE IS CONTINGENT ON APPLYING TO RE-ASSOCIATE WITH A BD FINRA MEMBER WHICH I HAVE NO INTENTION OF EVER DOING. FINRA DESCRIBES IT AS A FINE BUT I HAVE NOT PAID A FINE AND I AM NOT REQUIRED TO PAY ANY FINE WHAT SO EVER. – AS THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF A 2008 US MADE 100% ELECTRIC AUTOMOBILE, THE MANUFACTURER OFFERED ME 500 SHARES OF THE STOCK IN THEIR IPO WHICH I ACCEPTED. I WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY WRONGDOING IN PURCHASING THE IPO STOCK.
According to a study prepared for the FINRA Investor Education Foundation, 80 percent of American investors report that they have been solicited to participate in a fraud scheme, while 11 percent of American investors report that they personally lost money as a result of fraud.
FINRA notes that the rate of investment fraud is most likely much higher than it is reported. This is because many victims of financial advisor scams are too ashamed to come forward. Further, the study also found that a significant number of investors do not know how to spot common red flags of investment fraud. The least you should do is share your experience with other potential victims of investment scams.
Under federal securities law and securities industry regulations, registered investment firms have a legal duty to supervise their financial advisors. Section 15(b)(4)(E) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 makes a securities firm liable for the conduct of representatives.
- NFP SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 42046) :: 3/1/2004 – 5/31/2011 :: OCEANSIDE, CA
- SECURITIES AMERICA, INC. (CRD#: 10205) :: 10/4/1994 – 3/2/2004 :: LAVISTA, NE
- PRUCO SECURITIES CORPORATION (CRD#: 5685) :: 11/29/1991 – 10/8/1994 :: NEWARK, NJ
- THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA (CRD#: 680) :: 11/29/1991 – 12/10/1993 :: NEWARK, NJ
The duty to supervise securities representatives is a strong legal requirement. Registered investment firms must take many different steps to ensure that they are protecting their customers from irresponsible and criminal financial advisors.
Legit or Not?
Unfortunately, stockbroker fraud is more common than many investors would like to think. And yes, stockbrokers (including David Francis Mickelson, but not limited to) can (and do) steal money from their clients. While it’s rare that a broker will literally steal his client’s money (though that does happen), typically the “theft” of investment funds comes in the form of other fraudulent violations of securities law and FINRA rules which leads to significant investment losses.
Investors generally understand that there are risks associated with buying and selling securities. The market can go up, and the market can go down. No matter how skilled of an investor you are, there are always risks. With that being said, sometimes investment losses cannot be blamed on simple back luck.
There are 10 major types of complaints we receive against Investment Brokers –
- Outright Theft (Conversion of Funds)
- Unauthorized Trading
- Misrepresentation or Omission of Material Facts
- Excessive Trading (Churning)
- Lack of Diversification
- Unsuitable Investment Recommendations
- Failure to Disclose a Personal Conflict of Interest
- Front Running of Transactions
- Breakpoint Sale Violations
- Negligent Portfolio Management
Do your due diligence before investing. Public records are available for everybody to review and decide on the safest bet.
How to Protect Yourself
We, as citizens, place a great deal of trust in the financial advisors who are tasked with helping us achieve and maintain financial security. Most of the time financial advisors and stockbrokers are honest folks who work diligently in their client’s best interests. However, on occasion financial advisors and the brokerage firms who employ them mess up and cause serious financial harm to their clients. Sometimes these losses are caused by simple negligence. Other times fraud or other serious misconduct is to blame.
Here are 5 signs that your broker needs to be reported –
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, certain investment professionals, known as registered investment advisors (RIAs), owe fiduciary obligations to their customers. Your investment broker must always look out for your best interests. If you lost money because of your broker’s breach of fiduciary duty, you may be entitled to compensation for the full value of your damages.
- Unsuitable Investments: Many financial advisors are not fiduciaries. Instead, they are held to the suitability standard. These stockbrokers and financial advisors can only sell and recommend financial products that are appropriate for a customer’s unique investment profile. If you lost money in unsuitable investments, you should consider reporting them.
- Material Misrepresentations or Omissions: Brokers have a duty to make fair and honest representations to their clients. If they fail to do so, and an investor loses money due to a misrepresentation or a material omission, the broker may be liable for the investor’s losses.
- Lack of Diversification: Brokers must also act with the appropriate level of professional skill. Pushing a customer into over-concentrated investments is highly risky. Brokers can be held liable for losses sustained because of an investor’s inappropriate lack of diversification.
- Excessive Trading (Churning): Stockbrokers and financial advisors must have a well-grounded, reasonable basis to execute all trades. Unfortunately, there are cases in which brokers will frequently trade on a customer’s account, simply to increase their own fees. This unlawful practice is known as churning.
- Unauthorized Trading: Brokers must have the proper legal authority to make transactions on behalf of a client. If you lost money because your broker made trades that you never approved of, you may have been the victim of unauthorized trading. You should consult with an experienced attorney.
Report David Mickelson
In order to prevail in an investment fraud lawsuit or FINRA arbitration cases, you must be able to assert a viable ‘cause of action’.
David Francis Mickelson – and the firm that employs this broker – is regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). FINRA provides an online form to allow investors to file a formal complaint against their financial advisor, stockbroker, or brokerage firm.
Click here to go to FINRA’s Online Complaint Form →
This form will ask you for specific information related to your complaint. Be prepared by gathering the following:
- Name and symbol for the investment product in question.
- The CRD number (2187596) for the broker – David Francis Mickelson
- Your complete contact information.
Remember, it is advised to report your broker to FINRA, only after you have exhausted all of your other remedies and carefully prepared a compelling complaint. Once you file a complaint against your broker at FINRA, your case will be bound by FINRA’s rules and the arbitration panel’s eventual decision. The time clock will start, and your complaint will be served on your broker or broker-dealer.
The views and opinions expressed in these articles are those of the source BrokerComplaints.com and do not necessarily reflect the official position of ‘The Skeptic Files,’ which shall not be held liable for any inaccuracies presented. The information provided within this article is for general informational purposes only. While we try to keep the information up-to-date and correct, there are no representations or warranties, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability of the information in this article for any purpose.
This article is syndicated automatically through a third-party agency from BrokerComplaints.com.
To view the original article at BrokerComplaints.com, you can visit https://brokercomplaints.com/report/david-francis-mickelson/.