Anthony Joseph Amaradio – 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 Anthony Joseph Amaradio.
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 Anthony Joseph Amaradio. We provide a free platform for investors to help them in their claims against negligent brokers and brokerage firms.
About Anthony Amaradio
Anthony Joseph Amaradio is an Investment Adviser. Anthony Joseph Amaradio’s Central Registration Depository (CRD) number is 856933 and the FINRA Profile can be found at – https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/856933.
Click here to download a Detailed Audit Report for Anthony Joseph Amaradio.
Anthony Joseph Amaradio 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 Anthony Joseph Amaradio’s regulatory actions, arbitrations, and complaints.
DISCLOSURE 1 –
- Event Date: 7/12/2000
- Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
- Disclosure Resolution: Settled
- Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: ALLEGATIONS THAT COMPLAINTANTS SUFFERED DAMAGES IN THE FORMS OF INTEREST ON LOANS, SURRENDER FEES, UNNECESSARY SALES CHARGES AND HIGHER COSTS OF NEW INSURANCE DUE TO 1035 EXCHANGE OF TWO LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES IN AUGUST OF 1997 & JANUARY OF 1998. APPLICANT DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS AND BELIEVES THAT THEY WERE TRIGGERED BY AN IDS REPRESENTATIVE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY 1035 EXCHANGES THAT AGENT IMPLEMENTED ON THE TWO CUSTOMER POLICIES ADDRESSED IN THIS COMPLAINT. THE INTEREST ON POLICY LOANS AROSE FROM POLICY BORROWINGS INITIATED BY THE INVESTOR, NOT BY ANY ACTTIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPRESENTATIVES. FIRM DOCUMENTATION SIGNED BY THE INVESTOR REFUTES ALLEGATIONS OF FAILURE TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION.
- Damage Amount Requested: $750,000.00
- Settlement Amount: $9,900.00
- Broker Comment: THE AGREED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS FILED ON 9/23/2002.
DISCLOSURE 2 –
- Event Date: 10/14/1997
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA:
- Initiated By: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE
- Allegations: DUE TO THE NASD DECISION AND ORDER OF ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER OF SETTLEMENT DATED 12/12/1996 ON 10/14/1997 THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE ENTERED A REVOCATION ORDER AGAINST THE \LICENSING RIGHTS\ OF MR. AMARADIO. HE HAD PREVIOUSLY RESIGNED HIS CALIFORNIA INSURANCE AND VARIABLE INSURANCE LICENSE ON 3/20/1997. THIS REVOCATION OF APPLICANTS \LICENSING RIGHTS\ WAS NOT A RESULT OF A FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN A VIOLATION OF THE CA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE REGULATIONS OR STATUES.
- Resolution: Order
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Revocation/Expulsion/Denial
- Sanction Details: ORDER OF REVOCATION APPLIED TO LIFE AND VARIABLE LIFE \LICENSING RIGHTS\ SINCE HE HAD PREVIOUSLY VOLUNTARILY RESIGNED HIS LICENSE.
DISCLOSURE 3 –
- Event Date: 3/6/1997
- Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
- Disclosure Resolution: Settled
- Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF THREE VARIABLE LIFE POLICIES IN 1991 AND THREE VARIABLE LIFE POLICIES IN 1992, THE CLIENTS ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION, FRAUD AND BREACH OF CONTRACT. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES OF OVER $10,000 WERE ALLEGED.
- Settlement Amount: $235,000.00
- Broker Comment: LAWSUIT WAS SETTLED WITHOUT ANY ADMISSION OF LIABILITY OR WRONGDOING AND TO AVOID FURTHER COSTS, BURDENS OR DISTRACTIONS OF LITIGATION. THE LAWSUIT AGAINST PRUDENTIAL AND MR. AMARADIO WAS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. CERTAIN UNSPECIFIED POLICY ADJUSTMENTS WERE ALSO MADE AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT. MR. AMARADIO WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION ON THE RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER.
DISCLOSURE 4 –
- Event Date: 9/26/1996
- Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
- Disclosure Resolution: Settled
- Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: WITH REGARD TO [CUSTOMER’S 1991 PURCHASE OF A VARIABLE APPRECIABLE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, THE SUIT ALLEGED FRAUD, DECEIT AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND CONCEALMENT AND SUPPRESSION OF FACT WITH REGARD TO SUITABILITY, TAX TREATMENT FOR LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES, WITHDRAWL FEATURES AND THE ABILITY OF THE POLICY TO SUSTAIN ITSELF WITHOUT FURTHER PREMIUM PAYMENTS.
- Settlement Amount: $750,000.00
- Broker Comment: IN ORDER TO AVOID THE EXPENSE AND INCONVENIENCE OF FURTHER LITIGATION THE MATTER WAS SETTLED WITHOUT ANY ADMISSION OF LIABILITY ON THE PART OF PRUDENTIAL AND MR. AMARADIO. [CUSTOMER EXECUTED A GENERAL RELEASE IN FAVOR OF ALL OF THE DEFENDENTS TO TERMINATE THE LITIGATION. THE ACTION WAS DISMISSED WITH PREDJUDICE AND ORDER. MR. AMARADIO WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION ON THE RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER.
DISCLOSURE 5 –
- Event Date: 6/3/1996
- Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
- Disclosure Resolution: Settled
- Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: VERBAL COMPLAINT THAT HE WAS TOLD HE WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY ANY OUT OF POCKET PREMIUMS INTO HIS VARIABLE APPRECIABLE LIFE POLICY PURCHASED IN 1991 AFTER 6 OR 7 YEARS.
- Settlement Amount: $18,953.00
- Broker Comment: VERBAL COMPLAINT. PREMIUMS PAID WERE REFUNDED TO CLIENT BY PRUDENTIAL. MR. AMARADIO WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION ON THE RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER.
DISCLOSURE 6 –
- Event Date: 9/25/1995
- Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
- Disclosure Resolution: Settled
- Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: WITH REGARD TO THEIR 1994 PURCHASE OF TWO VARIABLE APPRECIABLE LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES, THE CLIENTS ALLEGED \…MISREPRESENTATION OF THE IMMINENT CHANGE IN THE LAWS AFFECTING THE VAL POLICY…\ AND THAT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE POLICY WERE HIGHER THAN HAD BEEN REPRESENTED AND LACK OF COMPLETE DISCLOSURE IN PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE VAL AND A MUTUAL FUND.
- Settlement Amount: $11,160.00
- Broker Comment: ALTHOUGH PRUDENTIAL FOUND NO EVIDENCE ON WHICH TO BASE AN ADJUSTMENT, IN THE INTEREST OF CUSTOMER RELATIONS, THE COMPANY PROVIDED A SETTLEMENT TO BOTH INSUREDS, WHICH WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PREMIUM PAID MINUS THE COST OF INSURANCE AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE CLIENTS WHEN THEY VOLUNTARILY CASH SURRENDERED THEIR POLICIES IN 1995. THIS RESULTED IN A TOTAL SETTLEMENT OF $11,160.00. MR. AMARADIO WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION ON THE RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER.
DISCLOSURE 7 –
- Event Date: 3/29/1995
- Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
- Disclosure Resolution: Settled
- Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: ALLEGATIONS OF MISREPRESENTATION CONCERNING THE SALE OF TWO VARIABLE APPRECIABLE LIFE POLICIES IN 1991.
- Settlement Amount: $15,946.37
- Broker Comment: PRUDENTIAL RETURNED PREMIUMS PAID ON BOTH POLICIES WHICH RESULTED IN A SETTLEMENT OF $15,946.37 OVER THE CASH SURRENDER VALUE. MR. AMARADIO WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION ON THE RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER.
DISCLOSURE 8 –
- Event Date: 12/9/1994
- Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
- Disclosure Resolution: Settled
- Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: CUSTOMER UNDERSTOOD SHE WAS PURCHASING A SINGLE PREMIUM TRADITIONAL POLICY. CONCERNS INVOLVE EQUITABLE SURRENDER CHARGES INCURRED AND RIA TIMING FEES.
- Settlement Amount: $24,253.48
- Broker Comment: PRUDENTIAL OFFERED RETURN OF PREMIUMS PAID. THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT EXCEEDED THE CASH SURRENDER VALUE BY $24,253.48. MR. AMARADIO WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION ON THE RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER.
DISCLOSURE 9 –
- Event Date: 7/21/1994
- Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
- Disclosure Resolution: Settled
- Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: CLIENTS ALLEGED THEY DID NOT HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR VARIABLE APPRECIABLE LIFE PURCHASES AND WERE MISLED WITH REGARD TO THE POTENTIAL RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT AND THE SUITABILITY OF REPLACING THEIR EXISTING POLICIES.
- Settlement Amount: $10,000.00
- Broker Comment: PRUDENTIAL OFFERED TO CANCEL VAL AND DISCOVERY PLUS CONTRACTS FROM INCEPTION AND PAY INTEREST ON EACH CONTRACT BASED ON MONEY MARKET SUB-ACCOUNT RATE OF RETURN. MR. AMARADIO ESTIMATES THIS SETTLEMENT AMOUNT WOULD HAVE BEEN OVER $10,000. HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION ON THE RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER.
DISCLOSURE 10 –
- Event Date: 2/9/1994
- Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
- Disclosure Resolution: Settled
- Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: CLIENT ALLEGED THAT BOTH PRUDENTIAL REPRESENATIVES FALSELY REPRESENTED THE VARIABLE APPRECIABLE LIFE POLICY TO HER. SHE REQUESTED A FULL REFUND OF PREMIUMS PAID. SHE EXPERIENCED A LARGE REDUCTION IN HER ASSET BASE DUE TO A DROP IN VALUE OF HER BORDON STOCK HOLDINGS. SHE WAS PREVIOUSLY ADVISED TO REDUCE HER HOLDINGS IN THIS STOCK AND DIVERSIFY HER FUNDS BUT SHE INSTEAD CHOOSE TO HOLD. HER COMPLAINT WAS MOTIVATED BY HER ATTEMPT TO RECOUP SOME OF HER FINANCIAL LOSSES EXPERIENCED BY HER STOCK LOSSES.
- Settlement Amount: $150,000.00
- Broker Comment: THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT ARE TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL. PRUDENTIAL SUPPORTED THE SALE AFTER REVIEWING THE FILE BUT BASED ON A DESIRE TO MAINTAIN STRONG CUSTOMER RELATIONS AGREED TO THE SETTLEMENT. MR. AMARADIO WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION ON THE RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER.
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.
- SECURITIES EQUITY GROUP (CRD#: 47215) :: 4/3/2001 – 3/27/2013 :: ALISO VIEJO, CA
- PRUCO SECURITIES CORPORATION (CRD#: 5685) :: 1/17/1991 – 12/8/1994 :: NEWARK, NJ
- COORDINATED CAPITAL SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 14762) :: 11/20/1985 – 11/30/1993 :: MADISON, WI
- THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES (CRD#: 4039) :: 9/18/1978 – 2/11/1991 :: NEW YORK, NY
- EQUICO SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 6627) :: 9/18/1978 – 7/31/1986
- MUTUAL SERVICE CORPORATION (CRD#: 4806) :: 10/3/1984 – 9/26/1985
- EQUICO SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 6627) :: 10/20/1980 – 9/20/1984
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 Anthony Joseph Amaradio, 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 Anthony Amaradio
In order to prevail in an investment fraud lawsuit or FINRA arbitration cases, you must be able to assert a viable ‘cause of action’.
Anthony Joseph Amaradio – 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 (856933) for the broker – Anthony Joseph Amaradio
- 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.