Securities Lawyers Blog
The securities attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP represent investors in their disputes with brokerage firms, such as Valic Financial Advisors, Inc.. Our firm can analyze your accounts and investments in order to determine if there was any broker misconduct in the handling of your accounts. Our analysis can reveal whether an investor has been a victim of misconduct such as unsuitable investments, unauthorized trading, excessive trading, or investment fraud.
VALIC Financial Advisors, Inc. is a broker-dealer and investment adviser that serves participants in employer-sponsored retirement plans and individual clients with enrollment, education, and recommendations on mutual funds, variable annuities, and life insurance. Headquartered in Houston, the firm is a national retirement plan provider serving individuals and high net worth clients across the United States.
Valic Financial Advisors, Inc. – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 42803
- Regulatory Events: 17
- Arbitration Events: 3
- Broker Employees: 1,308
Valic Financial Advisors, Inc. – Investment Advisors:
- SEC #: 54952
- Assets Under Management: $29,215,100,590
- ADV Form Employee: 1,647
Valic Financial Advisors, Inc. – In the News:
FINRA v. Valic Financial Advisors, Inc. (Case #2018060548501) – From January 1, 2017 through October 31, 2018, VFA failed to establish a reasonably designed system and written supervisory procedures for the surveillance of rates of VA exchanges and for corrective action in the case of inappropriate exchanges, in violation of FINRA Rules 2330(d), 3110, and 2010. During this time, VFA also failed to establish a reasonably designed system and supervisory procedures for the review of transactions where a registered representative recommended that a customer invest additional funds into an existing VA, in violation of FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010. Finally, VFA failed to timely report statistical and summary information for 174 written customer complaints received by the firm between June 26, 2017 and March 20, 2018, in violation of FINRA Rules 4530(d) and 2010.
FINRA v. Valic Financial Advisors, Inc. (Case #2014042360001) – VFA’s business platform consists of two primary divisions: (1) group employer sponsored retirement plan accounts which are invested in variable annuities (“VAs”) issued by VALIC (“Retirement Plan(s)”) or in mutual fund retirement plans; and (2) retail financial services. When employees separate from their employer and are no longer eligible to contribute to their Retirement Plan accounts, they may elect to move their Retirement Plan account assets into individual retirement accounts (IRA) or other investment vehicles thereby becoming retail brokerage customers of VFA. In 2014, individuals surrendered VAs issued by VALIC totaling approximately $5.8 billion, 11% of this amount was rolled into VFA retail accounts. From October 2011 through October 2014, however, VFA’s supervisory system failed to identify and reasonably address certain conflicts of interest in VFA’s compensation policy where customers elected to move assets out of their Retirement Plan and other VALIC VAs. Specifically, the Firm’s compensation policy provided for limited or no compensation for certain investments where the proceeds were transferred from a VALIC VA. However, the Firm’s compensation policy did provide for the payment of compensation if those proceeds were rolled into the Firm’s Managed Investment Program (“MIP”), a fee-based investment advisory services program, or the Power Index Plus (“PIP”), a fixed index annuity. During this time period, there was growth in new business being directed to the MIP and PIP. Despite the fact that in 2013 and 2014 alone, VFA sold more than $3.8 billion in VAs, the Firm, from October 2011 through December 2014, also failed to establish, maintain and enforce a system to adequately supervise certain aspects of the sale of individual VA contracts. More specifically, the Firm’s supervision of the purchase and exchange of VAs was inadequate in that: (1) VFA’s systems did not provide principals reviewing and approving VA transactions sufficient information to consider all of customers’ existing assets and holdings prior to approving VA transactions; (2) the Firm failed to enforce its existing procedures relating to the review of required customer information on the Firm’s Annuity Transaction Disclosure Form (“ATDF”); (3) the Firm established a “Pay at 0” policy that allowed principals to approve and finalize VA transactions before obtaining all documentation for the principal’s review; and (4) the Firm failed to enforce its written supervisory procedures (“WSPs”) requiring heightened review, with documentation, of VA transactions that exceeded certain concentration levels.
Our attorneys have successfully represented hundreds of investors in investment disputes with their brokers and brokerage firms. Our consultations are free and we welcome all inquiries.