John Scott Murphy at EDWARD JONES – View Complaints, Disclosures, Scams and Audit Report (Updated 2023)

Disclosure #1 for John Murphy

• • eventDate: 8/25/2003
  • Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
  • Disclosure Resolution: Denied
  • Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: CLIENT’S SON STATES IR DISCUSSED HIS CONCERNS REGARDING HER CONCENTRATION OF INVESTMENTS IN THE EJ ACCOUNT. SON STATES HE HAD DISCUSSED THE SAME CONCERNS WITH HIM, HOWEVER, SON STATES IR WAS NOT PRIVY TO CLIENT’S TOTAL FINANCIAL SITUATION AND OVERALL SHE WAS IN GOOD SHAPE. SON INDICATES HE HAD INFORMED IR TO CONTACT HIM IF EXXON REACHED $40/SHARE AND AT THAT TIME A PLAN OF ACTION WOULD BE DISCUSSED. SON STATES IR MET WITH HIS MOTHER TO INITIATE STOCK TRANSFERS INTO TWO ACCOUNTS AND THE EXXON STOCK WAS SOLD AND AN ADDITIONAL PURCHASE WAS MADE INTO THE PROTECTIVE ADV VAR ANNUITY. ACCORDING TO SON, EJ AND ANOTHER INVESTMENT FIRM HAD BUY RECOMMENDATIONS ON EXXON STOCK. SON STATES IR DID NOT PROVIDE A PROSPECTUS, ILLUSTRATIONS OR ANY OTHER INVESTMENT MATERIAL. SON BELIEVES IR DID NOT PERFORM A THOROUGH NEEDS ANALYSIS. SON STATES HE CONTACTED IR THE DAY THE CLIENT MET WITH IR AND INFORMED IR THE CLIENT WAS COMING BACK TO BRANCH TO REVERSE THE TRANSACTIONS. SON STATES THAT CLIENT WAS INFORMED IT WAS TOO LATE TO CANCEL THE TRADES. CLIENT IS REQUESTING THE REVERSAL OF THE TRANSACTION. LOSSES EXCEED $5,000.
  • Damage Amount Requested: $5,000.00
  • Arbitration Docket Number:
  • Broker Comment: THE IR STATED HE HAD SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CLIENT ABOUT HER CONCENTRATION IN FOUR ENERGY STOCKS WITH XOM MAKING UP 46%. THE IR STATED HE DEALT WITH THE CLIENT IN MOST INSTANCES AND ONLY CONTACTED CLIENT’S SON A FEW TIMES AT THE CLIENT’S REQUEST. THE IR STATED HE WAS NOT GIVEN ALL OF THE CLIENT’S FINANCIAL INFORMATION, BUT IR WAS ABLE TO CREATE A GOOD OVERALL PICTURE THROUGH PERIODIC PORTFOLIO REVIEWS, CLIENT’S STATED NET WORTH OF $1.6 MILLION, AND DISCUSSION OF CLIENT’S OUTSIDE ASSETS. THE IR CONTENDS HE NEVER AGREED TO ONLY SELL XOM AT OR ABOVE $40. THE IR STATED THE CLIENT CHOSE THE ANNUITY FOR HER XOM PROCEEDS IN JULY 2003, AS CLIENT WAS ADDING TO THE ANNUITY SHE BOUGHT IN SEPTEMBER 2002. THE IR STATED CLIENT RECEIVED A CURRENT PROSPECTUS IN SEPTEMBER 2002 AND THIS WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE CLIENT IN WRITING ON OCTOBER 9, 2002. IT APPEARS THAT THE INVESTMENTS HELD IN CLIENT’S ACCOUNT WERE WITHIN THE INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES LISTED FOR CLIENT’S ACCOUNT. CLAIM DENIED.