Thomas Edward Stern – 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 Thomas Edward Stern.
The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient… Warren Buffet
BrokerComplaints.com is currently investigating allegations related to Thomas Edward Stern. We provide a free platform for investors to help them in their claims against negligent brokers and brokerage firms.
About Thomas Stern
Thomas Edward Stern is an Investment Adviser. Thomas Edward Stern’s Central Registration Depository (CRD) number is 1650359 and the FINRA Profile can be found at – https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/1650359.
Click here to download a Detailed Audit Report for Thomas Edward Stern.
Thomas Edward Stern 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 Thomas Edward Stern’s regulatory actions, arbitrations, and complaints.
DISCLOSURE 1 –
- Event Date: 8/8/2012
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: 12-0042
- DocketNumberAAO: 12-0042
- Initiated By: CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE
- Allegations: THOMAS STERN (STERN), THE FORMER FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONS PRINCIPAL (FINOP) AND THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF OPTIONSXPRESS, INC. (OPTIONSXPRESS) AND THE FORMER CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, FINOP, ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COMPLIANCE OFFICER AND CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER OF OX TRADING, LLC (OX). IN ADDITION, STERN WAS THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF OPTIONSXPRESS HOLDINGS, INC. STERN WAS CENSURED AND PERMANENTLY BARRED FROM ACTING AS A TRADING PERMIT HOLDER OR FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY TRADING PERMIT HOLDER OR TPH ORGANIZATION FOR THE FOLLOWING CONDUCT. STERN: (I) FAILED TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN A DAILY RECORD TO EVIDENCE THE CALCULATION PERFORMED TO DEDUCT AGGREGATE OUTSTANDING PORTFOLIO MARGIN CALLS AGED T+1 OR MORE FROM NET CAPITAL; AND AS A RESULT, FAILED TO ADEQUATELY SUPERVISE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS REQUIREMENT, AND AS A RESULT, STERN CAUSED A VIOLATION BY OPTIONSXPRESS OF EXCHANGE RULES 4.1, 4.2, 13.5(C) – CUSTOMER PORTFOLIO MARGIN ACCOUNTS AND 15.1 – MAINTENANCE, RETENTION AND FURNISHING OF BOOKS, RECORDS AND OTHER INFORMATION; AND SECTION 15(C) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AND SEC RULE 15C3-1 – NET CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BROKERS OR DEALERS, THEREUNDER; (II) FAILED TO ADEQUATELY SUPERVISE BY FAILING TO PREVENT THE CONDUCT DESCRIBED IN (I) ABOVE, AS WELL AS THE CALCULATIONS TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OPTIONSXPRESS WAS REQUIRED TO DEPOSIT TO ITS CUSTOMER RESERVE BANK ACCOUNT RESULTING IN OPTIONSXPRESS UNDER-RESERVING ITS CUSTOMER RESERVE BANK ACCOUNT FOR 13 OF 14 MONTH-END COMPUTATIONS SAMPLED; AND (III) FAILED TO ADEQUATELY SUPERVISE OX’S ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING PROGRAM (AML PROGRAM), IN THAT OX FAILED TO OBTAIN AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF ITS AML PROGRAM. IN ADDITION, STERN MADE FALSE STATEMENTS OR MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE EXCHANGE, IN THAT STERN: A) MADE A FALSE STATEMENT TO THE EXCHANGE REGARDING ALLEGED GUIDANCE PROVIDED BY CERTAIN EXCHANGE STAFF CONCERNING OX MARKET-MAKING REQUIREMENTS AND CONCERNING OX’S INTENTIONS TO TRADE AS A PORTFOLIO MARGIN CUSTOMER; B) MADE VARIOUS MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE EXCHANGE CONCERNING THE COMPUTATIONS SURROUNDING OPTIONSXPRESS CUSTOMER RESERVE ACCOUNTS; AND C) STERN REPRESENTED THAT IN JANUARY 2009, OPTIONSXPRESS, INC. TESTED AND MOVED THE OX POSITIONS AND ACTIVITY INTO THE PROFESSIONAL CUSTOMER DESIGNATION FROM BD/CUSTOMER WHEN IN FACT, STAFF IDENTIFIED THAT 99% OF THE APPLICABLE EXECUTIONS (FOR 99% OF THE OPTION CONTRACTS) ON BEHALF OF OX TRADING, WERE EXECUTED AS FIRM (F) OR BROKER-DEALER (B) ORIGIN CODES, AND NOT PROFESSIONAL CUSTOMER (W). (CBOE RULES 4.1, 4.2, AND 4.6)
- Resolution: Consent
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Bar (Permanent)
- Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: ALL CAPACITIES
- Duration: PERMANENT Sanctions: Censure
- Sanctions: A CENSURE AND A PERMANENT BAR FROM ACTING AS A TRADING PERMIT HOLDER OR FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY TRADING PERMIT HOLDER OR TPH ORGANIZATION.
DISCLOSURE 2 –
- Event Date: 4/19/2012
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA:
- Initiated By: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
- Allegations: SEC ADMINISTRATIVE RELEASE 34-66831, INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT RELEASE 40- 30039, APRIL 19, 2012: THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION DEEMED IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS BE INSTITUTED PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15(B) AND 21C OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND SECTION 9(B) OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940 AGAINST THOMAS E. STERN (RESPONDENT). STERN CAUSED AND WILLFULLY AIDED AND ABETTED THE VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 15(A) AND 15(B)(8) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT. A FIRM, ANOTHER RESPONDENT IN THE MATTER WAS FORMED WITH STERN AS THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. ON DECEMBER 31, 2008, AN EXAMINER OF CBOE SENT AN EMAIL TO STERN ASKING WHY HIS FIRM, LOST MORE THAN 15% OF ITS EXCESS NET CAPITAL IN NOVEMBER 2008. THE CBOE EXAMINER ALSO ASKED THE FIRM TO COMPLETE A MEMBER QUESTIONNAIRE AND INQUIRED WHETHER THE FIRM ONLY CONDUCTED PROPRIETARY TRADING OR WHETHER IT ALSO ACTED AS A MARKET MAKER. STERN COMPLETED THE QUESTIONNAIRE STATING THAT THE FIRM CONDUCTED ONLY PROPRIETARY TRADING. THE QUESTIONNAIRE DID NOT LIST AN OUTSIDE AUDITOR FOR THE FIRM. STERN DID NOT RESPOND TO THE EXAMINER’S INQUIRY ABOUT THE NOVEMBER 2008 LOSS. THE CBOE EXAMINER AGAIN ASKED STERN FOR A DETAILED EXPLANATION OF HIS FIRM’S NOVEMBER LOSS AND TOLD STERN THAT THE FIRM WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE AN ANNUAL AUDIT BASED ON ITS CBOE MEMBERSHIP STATUS. STERN RESPONDED THAT THE LOSS WAS DUE TO THE CONVERSION FROM THE INVENTORY RANGE TO THE CUSTOMER RANGE BECAUSE OF OUR DESIRE FOR ANOTHER RESPONDENT FIRM, THE CLEARING FIRM, TO BE ABLE TO CLASSIFY ITS MARGIN DEBIT RECEIVABLE FROM HIS FIRM AS A ‘GOOD’ ASSET. HOWEVER, INTERNAL FIRM EMAILS INDICATE THAT AT LEAST PART OF THE LOSS WAS DUE TO POOR TRADING PERFORMANCE. DESPITE CBOE’S REQUEST, STERN REFUSED TO PAY FOR AN AUDIT AND SUBSEQUENTLY DECIDED TO TERMINATE HIS FIRM’S CBOE MEMBERSHIP. THE FIRM CEASED BEING A MEMBER OF CBOE ON MARCH 2, 2009, BUT IT CONTINUED TO CONDUCT THE SAME TRADING, BUT THROUGH A CUSTOMER PORTFOLIO MARGIN ACCOUNT AT THE OTHER RESPONDENT FIRM. STERN DID NOT INFORM THE CBOE THAT HIS FIRM WOULD CONTINUE ITS OPERATIONS AS A CUSTOMER OF THE OTHER FIRM. THE COMMISSION INFORMED STERN’S FIRM THAT IT COULD NOT ENGAGE IN THE SECURITIES BUSINESS UNLESS IT WAS A MEMBER OF AN EXCHANGE OR THE NASD. STERN FILED A FORM WITH THE COMMISSION TO DEREGISTER HIS FIRM AS A BROKER-DEALER. DEREGISTRATION BECAME EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 17, 2009, BUT HIS FIRM CONTINUED TO TRADE THROUGH A CUSTOMER PORTFOLIO MARGIN ACCOUNT AT THE OTHER RESPONDENT FIRM. ON JUNE 17, 2010, CBOE SENT A LETTER TO STERN STATING THAT CBOE BELIEVED HIS FIRM WAS FUNCTIONING AS A DEALER AND WAS REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A BROKER-DEALER. CBOE ASKED HIS FIRM TO EITHER CEASE OPERATIONS OR OBTAIN A WRITTEN OPINION FROM THE COMMISSION CONFIRMING THAT HIS FIRM WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER. CBOE ASKED STERN’S FIRM TO RESPOND BY JUNE 22, 2010. THE FIRM DID NOT RESPOND UNTIL JUNE 29, 2010, WHEN ITS OUTSIDE COUNSEL ASKED FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO RESPOND. ON JULY 20, 2010, STERN’S FIRM FILED AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION WITH THE COMMISSION AND WAS GRANTED CONDITIONAL APPROVAL ON AUGUST 26, 2010. FOR ITS SEC REGISTRATION TO BECOME EFFECTIVE, STERN’S FIRM WAS REQUIRED TO BE A MEMBER OF FINRA OR AN EXCHANGE. ON OCTOBER 6, 2010, THE FIRM FILED AN APPLICATION WITH CBOE. THE APPLICATION WAS APPROVED ON NOVEMBER 9, 2010 AND THE NECESSARY ACCESS PERMITS WERE ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 12, 2010. NEVERTHELESS AT CBOE’S INSISTENCE, THE SEC REGISTRATION AND CBOE TRADING PERMIT BECAME EFFECTIVE ON NOVEMBER 16, 2010. FROM MARCH 2, 2009 TO NOVEMBER 16, 2010, THE FIRM EXECUTED APPROXIMATELY 1.3 MILLION TRADES. ITS GROSS PROFITS FROM MARCH 2009 TO NOVEMBER 2010 WERE APPROXIMATELY $3.5 MILLION. (CONT’D IN COMMENT)
- Resolution: Order
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Cease and Desist Sanctions: Civil and Administrative Penalty(ies)/Fine(s)
- Sanction Details :: Amount: $50,000.00 Sanctions: Undertaking
DISCLOSURE 3 –
- Event Date: 4/16/2012
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA:
- Initiated By: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
- Allegations: SEC ADMIN RELEASES 33-9313, 34-66815, INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT RELEASE 40-30034, APRIL 16, 2012: THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION DEEMED IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDING BE INSTITUTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 8A OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, SECTIONS 15(B) AND 21C OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AND SECTION 9(B) OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940 AGAINST THOMAS E. STERN (RESPONDENT). THE DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT ALLEGED THAT STERN CAUSED AND WILLFULLY AIDED AND ABETTED HIS FIRM’S VIOLATIONS OF RULES 204 AND 204T AND A CUSTOMER’S VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 17(A) OF THE SECURITIES ACT, SECTION 10(B) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULES 10B-5 AND 10B-21. THE CASE INVOLVED A COMPLEX SHORT SELLING SCHEME TO PROFIT BY CIRCUMVENTING THE DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS OF REGULATION SHO OF THE EXCHANGE ACT ( EG. SHO). THE RESPONDENT’S MEMBER FIRM FAILED TO SATISFY ITS CLOSE-OUT OBLIGATIONS UNDER RULES 204 AND 204T OF REG. SHO BY REPEATEDLY ENGAGING IN A SERIES OF SHAM TRANSACTIONS, KNOWN AS ESETS, DESIGNED TO GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF HAVING PURCHASED SHARES TO CLOSE-OUT AN OPEN FAILURE-TO-DELIVER POSITION WHILE IN FACT NOT DOING SO. SIX CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS AT THE FIRM ENGAGED IN REVERSE CONVERSIONS AND SIMILAR OPTIONS TRADING STRATEGIES. THE SHAM RESETS WERE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE FIRM FACILITATING ITS CUSTOMERS BUYING SHARES AND SIMULTANEOUSLY SELLING DEEP IN-THE-MONEY CALL OPTIONS THAT WERE ESSENTIALLY THE ECONOMIC EQUIVALENT OF SELLING SHARES SHORT. THE PURCHASE OF SHARES CREATED THE ILLUSION THAT THE FIRM HAD SATISFIED THE CLOSE-OUT OBLIGATION; HOWEVER, THE SHARES THAT WERE OSTENSIBLY PURCHASED IN THE RESET TRANSACTIONS WERE NEVER ACTUALLY DELIVERED TO THE PURCHASERS BECAUSE ON THE SAME DAY THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED, THE DEEP IN-THE-MONEY CALLS WERE EXERCISED, THEREBY EFFECTIVELY RESELLING THE SHARES. AS A RESULT, THE FIRM AND ITS CUSTOMERS HAD CONTINUOUS FAILURES TO DELIVER IN THESE AND OTHER SECURITIES THAT PERSISTED FOR MONTHS, THEREBY UNDERMINING THE PURPOSE OF RULES 204 AND 204T OF REG. SHO. THESE SHAM RESET TRANSACTIONS ALSO IMPACTED THE MARKET FOR THE ISSUERS. IN 2009 ALONE, THE SIX FIRM CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS IN TOTAL PURCHASED APPROXIMATELY $5.7 BILLION WORTH OF SECURITIES AND SOLD SHORT APPROXIMATELY $4 BILLION OF OPTIONS. STERN, HIS FIRM AND THE CUSTOMERS KNEW, OR WERE RECKLESS IN NOT KNOWING, THAT MOST, IF NOT ALL, THE CALLS THAT WERE SOLD AS PART OF THE BUY-WRITES WOULD BE EXERCISED AND ASSIGNED ON THE SAME DAY THEY WERE SOLD, RESULTING IN SHARES NOT BEING DELIVERED ON SETTLEMENT; RESULTING IN FAILURES-TO-DELIVER. THE FIRM KNEW EARLY ON THAT THE TRADING WAS PROBLEMATIC AND DID NOT ACT UPON RED FLAGS. NONETHELESS, STERN ALLOWED THE CUSTOMERS’ BUY-WRITES TO CONTINUE. FINRA TOLD THE FIRM THAT IF IT WANTED GUIDANCE ABOUT THE TRADING, IT SHOULD SEND A REQUEST IN WRITING TO FINRA OR THE SEC. THE FIRM DID NOT SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE TO EITHER THE SEC OR FINRA. INSTEAD, IT CONTINUED EXECUTING THE CUSTOMERS’ BUY-WRITES. A COMPLIANCE OFFICER EXPLAINED REG. SHO TO A CUSTOMER AGAIN, BUT THE CUSTOMER RESPONDED THAT IT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HIS STRATEGIES TO BE USED TO AVOID BUYINS, OR ‘RESTART THE CLOCK’ SOMETIMES. THE FIRM TOOK NO ACTION REGARDING THE CUSTOMER’S DESIRE TO ESTART THE SETTLEMENT CLOCK. ON MARCH 9, 2010, STERN AND TWO OTHER OFFICERS CALLED CBOE, ASKING IT TO ADVOCATE ON THE FIRM’S BEHALF IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEC INVESTIGATION. CBOE INSTEAD REFERRED THE FIRM TO THE CBOE’S REGULATORY CIRCULARS WHICH DISCUSSED SHAM TRANSACTIONS. THE SAME DAY, THE FIRM DECIDED TO HALT THE TRADING, BUT ALLOWED IT TO CONTINUE UNTIL THE MARCH OPTIONS EXPIRATION. THE DECISION TO HALT THE TRADING WAS MADE BY STERN AND TWO OTHER OFFICERS. STERN KNEW OR WAS RECKLESS IN NOT KNOWING THAT THE BUY-WRITE CALLS WOULD BE EXERCISED AND ASSIGNED.
- Resolution: Order
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Bar (Permanent)
- Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: ASSOCIATION WITH ANY BROKER, DEALER, INVESTMENT ADVISER, MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALER, MUNICIPAL ADVISOR OR TRANSFER AGENT
- Duration: Indefinite
- Start Date: 1/17/2014 Registration Capacities Affected: ASSOCIATION WITH ANY NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED STATISTICAL RATING ORGANIZATION
- Duration: Indefinite
- Start Date: 1/17/2014 Registration Capacities Affected: PARTICIPATING IN AN OFFERING OF PENNY STOCK
- Duration: Indefinite
- Start Date: 1/17/2014 Sanctions: Cease and Desist Sanctions: Civil and Administrative Penalty(ies)/Fine(s)
- Sanction Details :: Amount: $75,000.00 Sanctions: Prohibition
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.
Previous Associations
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.
- OX TRADING, LLC (CRD#: 154667) :: 2/17/2011 – 2/8/2012 :: CHICAGO, IL
- BROKERSXPRESS LLC (CRD#: 127081) :: 9/30/2003 – 2/8/2012 :: CHICAGO, IL
- OPTIONSXPRESS, INC. (CRD#: 103849) :: 12/20/2001 – 2/8/2012 :: CHICAGO, IL
- EZ STOCKS, INC. (CRD#: 103866) :: 11/24/2000 – 11/26/2001 :: BROOKFIELD, WI
- REGAL DISCOUNT SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 7297) :: 3/30/1999 – 2/11/2000 :: GLENVIEW, IL
- TRADERS SERVICES, INC. (CRD#: 26124) :: 10/4/1990 – 3/23/1999
- SECURITIES OPTIONS CORP. (CRD#: 6465) :: 2/21/1989 – 3/10/1990 :: CHICAGO, IL
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 Thomas Edward Stern, 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.
Sometimes investment losses occur because advisors, stockbrokers, and even brokerage firms, commit fraud. Massimo Vignelli
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 Thomas Stern
In order to prevail in an investment fraud lawsuit or FINRA arbitration cases, you must be able to assert a viable ‘cause of action’.
Thomas Edward Stern – 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 (1650359) for the broker – Thomas Edward Stern
- 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/thomas-edward-stern/.
