Michael Todd Clements Audit (2023) – A Scam or Legit Broker?

Michael Todd Clements  – 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 Michael Todd Clements.

BrokerComplaints.com is currently investigating allegations related to Michael Todd Clements. We provide a free platform for investors to help them in their claims against negligent brokers and brokerage firms.

About Michael Clements

Michael Todd Clements is an Investment Adviser. Michael Todd Clements’s Central Registration Depository (CRD) number is 1702071 and the FINRA Profile can be found at – https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/1702071.

Click here to download a Detailed Audit Report for Michael Todd Clements.

Michael Todd Clements 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 Michael Todd Clements’s regulatory actions, arbitrations, and complaints.

DISCLOSURE 1 – 

• Event Date: 10/23/2018
• Disclosure Type: Regulatory
• Disclosure Resolution: Final
• Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: 15-02744
• DocketNumberAAO: 15-02744
• Initiated By: FINRA
• Allegations: Respondent Michael Clements failed to comply with an arbitration award or settlement agreement or to satisfactorily respond to a FINRA request to provide information concerning the status of compliance.
• Resolution: Letter
• Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Suspension
• Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: All Capacities
• Duration: Indefinite
• Duration Explanation: Continues until required payment is made or discharged.
• Start Date: 10/23/2018
• Regulator Statement: Pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of FINRA By-Laws, and FINRA Rule 9554, Respondent Michael Clements is suspended on October 23, 2018 for failure to comply with an arbitration award or settlement agreement or to satisfactorily respond to a FINRA request to provide information concerning the status of compliance.

DISCLOSURE 2 – 

• Event Date: 8/9/2017
• Disclosure Type: Regulatory
• Disclosure Resolution: Final
• Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: 16-02935
• DocketNumberAAO: 16-02935
• Initiated By: FINRA
• Allegations: Respondent Clements failed to comply with an arbitration award or settlement agreement or to satisfactorily respond to a FINRA request to provide information concerning the status of compliance.
• Resolution: Letter
• Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Suspension
• Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: All Capacities
• Duration: Indefinite
• Duration Explanation: Continues until required payment is made or discharged.
• Start Date: 8/9/2017
• Regulator Statement: Pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of FINRA By-Laws, and FINRA Rule 9554, Respondent Clements is suspended on August 9, 2017 for failure to comply with an arbitration award or settlement agreement or to satisfactorily respond to a FINRA request to provide information concerning the status of compliance.

DISCLOSURE 3 – 

• Event Date: 10/5/2016
• Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
• Disclosure Resolution: Award / Judgment
• Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: Clements was named in a customer complaint that asserted the following causes of action: unsuitability and margin abuse, failure to supervise, and breach of fiduciary duty.
• Damage Amount Requested: $50,000.00
• Arbitration Claim File Detail: 16-02935
• Regulator Statement: The Award has not been paid.

DISCLOSURE 4 – 

• Event Date: 8/23/2016
• Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
• Disclosure Resolution: Denied
• Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: Customer committed fraud, theft, failure to supervise and supervisory gross negligence,terminated for said activities filed an arbitration alleging false representation on his Form U5
• Damage Amount Requested: $25,000.00
• Arbitration Docket Number: 16-01469
• Broker Comment: A $150,000 counter Claim has been filed by Respondent. Since the internal review had been completed on [customer a significantly greater amount of supportive documents have been gather to support every allegation of theft, fraud, supervisory gross negligence and failure to supervise that is documented on his form U-5 and that his claim is not only frivolous and without any merit but [customer committed fraud in his other arbitration responses to which he was named.

DISCLOSURE 5 – 

• Event Date: 2/23/2016
• Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
• Disclosure Resolution: Settled
• Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: CUSTOMER IS AN EXTREMELY WEALTHY AND HIGHLY SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR WHO WAS IN DAILY CONTACT WITH HIS BROKER ON EVERY TRANSACTION AND WAS KEENLY AWARE OF ALL THE SUITABLE INVESTMENTS AND ACTIVITY HE AUTHORIZED IN HIS ACCOUNT. CUSTOMER’S ACCOUNT WAS SUPERVISED WITH HEIGHTED SCRUTINY WHICH WAS WELL DOCUMENTED. AS THE CUSTOMER LOST MONEY AND HAD RECENTLY NEGOTIATED A SETTLEMENT WITH ANOTHER BROKER DEALER FOR SIMILAR ACTIVITY, CUSTOMER BEGAN ATTEMPTING TO DO THE SAME WITH AVENIR. THE FIRM VIEWS THIS AS A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT.
• Damage Amount Requested: $1,000,000.00
• Settlement Amount: $255,000.00
• Arbitration Docket Number: 15-00155
• Broker Comment: MICHAEL CLEMENTS WAS NAMED TO ARBITRATION AS THE CEO AND EQUITY OWNER OF THE FIRM. CUSTOMER IS AN EXTREMELY WEALTHY AND HIGHLY SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR WHO WAS IN DAILY CONTACT WITH HIS BROKER ON EVERY TRANSACTION AND WAS KEENLY AWARE OF ALL THE SUITABLE INVESTMENTS AND ACTIVITY HE AUTHORIZED IN HIS ACCOUNT. CUSTOMER’S ACCOUNT WAS SUPERVISED WITH HEIGHTED SCRUTINY WHICH WAS WELL DOCUMENTED. AS THE CUSTOMER LOST MONEY AND HAD RECENTLY NEGOTIATED A SETTLEMENT WITH ANOTHER BROKER DEALER FOR SIMILAR ACTIVITY, CUSTOMER BEGAN ATTEMPTING TO DO THE SAME WITH AVENIR. THE FIRM VIEWS THIS AS A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT. Claim was settled due to potential future costs of litigation.

DISCLOSURE 6 – 

• Event Date: 1/14/2016
• Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
• Disclosure Resolution: Pending
• Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: Unauthorized trading, Churning, excessive commissions, suitability.
• Damage Amount Requested: $110,000.00
• Broker Comment: Michael Clements was named as an owner of the firm. The Allegations in the Arbitration are unfounded and frivolous. [Customer’s initial complaint for $9,000 in excessive commissions was settled with [customer because it was not worth the time or expense to fight a litigation of that size. [Broker subsequently failed to meet the full obligation and make all his settlement payments so [customer is now inventing new allegations to justify an arbitration. All trades in his account, were not only authorized, but suitable.

DISCLOSURE 7 – 

• Event Date: 10/8/2015
• Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
• Disclosure Resolution: Award / Judgment
• Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: Respondent was named in customer’s complaint that asserted the following causes of action: unauthorized trading, breach of fiduciary duty, churning, manipulation, misrepresentation, suitability, failure to supervise, negligence, indemnification, theft, recovery of commissions, swindle, and forgery. The causes of action related to Claimant’s allegations that Respondents purchased shares in his account and traded on margin without his permission. Claimant further alleged that Respondents falsified account documents to allow for trading other than the single purchase of Fibrocell Science stock, which he had authorized.
• Damage Amount Requested: $148,876.71
• Arbitration Claim File Detail: 15-02744
• Regulator Statement: This award has not been paid by or on behalf of Michael Clements as of October 23, 2018.
• Broker Comment: Clements was named because he was an officer of the firm and potential owner.

DISCLOSURE 8 – 

• Event Date: 4/27/2015
• Disclosure Type: Regulatory
• Disclosure Resolution: Final
• Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: 2015044960501
• DocketNumberAAO: 2015044960501
• Initiated By: FINRA
• Allegations: CLEMENTS WAS NAMED A RESPONDENT IN A FINRA COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT HIS MEMBER FIRM, HE AS ITS FOUNDER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) AND CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER (CCO), AND A REPRESENTATIVE, COMMITTED FRAUD IN THE SALE OF EQUITY OR PROMISSORY NOTES OF THE FIRM OR ITS BRANCH OFFICES, AND THE CCO AIDED AND ABETTED FRAUD. MOST OF THE SALES WERE TO ELDERLY CUSTOMERS OF THE FIRM, AND THE RESPONDENT’S CAPITAL RAISING PRACTICES ARE CONTINUING. THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT CLEMENTS DIRECTED THE REPRESENTATIVE TO CONTACT HIS CUSTOMERS REGARDING INVESTING IN THE FIRM, AND TO OFFER A ONE PERCENT INTEREST IN THE FIRM FOR EVERY $50,000 INVESTED, WITHOUT EXPLAINING ANY BASIS FOR THE PRICE OF THE EQUITY OR PROVIDING THE REPRESENTATIVE WITH ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THE FIRM’S FINANCIAL CONDITION, RECENT INVESTMENTS IN THE FIRM AT FAR LOWER PRICES, OR A PLAN OF ACTION THE FIRM SUBMITTED TO ITS CLEARING FIRM. ONE OF THE INVESTORS THE REPRESENTATIVE SOLICITED AGREED TO INVEST $250,000 FOR A FIVE PERCENT EQUITY INTEREST IN THE FIRM. IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF THE FIRM’S EQUITY TO THIS INVESTOR, THE FIRM, THROUGH HIM, KNOWINGLY OMITTED A MATERIAL FACT NECESSARY TO MAKE THE STATEMENTS MADE TO THE INVESTOR NOT MISLEADING. SPECIFICALLY, THE FIRM, THROUGH THE REPRESENTATIVE, FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT IT WAS FACING A DIRE REGULATORY CAPITAL SITUATION AS A RESULT OF A $190,000 MARGIN CALL AND FACED THE PROSPECT THAT IT WOULD SOON FAIL ITS REGULATORY CAPITAL REQUIREMENT. CLEMENTS PREPARED THE INVESTOR’S PURCHASE AGREEMENT, WHICH CONTAINED THE TERMS OF THE INVESTOR’S INVESTMENT. THROUGH THE INVESTOR’S PURCHASE AGREEMENT, CLEMENTS KNOWINGLY REPRESENTED THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE OF A ONE PERCENT SHARE IN THE FIRM WAS $50,000, WITHOUT DISCLOSING THAT AN ELDERLY INVESTOR PAID HALF THAT PRICE 22 DAYS EARLIER AND THAT HIS MOTHER PAID A SMALL FRACTION OF THAT PRICE 27 DAYS EARLIER. THE FACT THAT THE FIRM SOLD THE EQUITY INTERESTS IN THE FIRM AT FAR LOWER PRICES WITHIN THE PREVIOUS MONTH WAS A MATERIAL FACT. BY ENGAGING IN THE FOREGOING CONDUCT, THE RESPONDENT WILLFULLY VIOLATED SECTION 10(B) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 10B-5. THE COMPLAINT ALSO ALLEGES THAT PRIOR TO THE REPRESENTATIVE’S SOLICITATION OF THE INVESTOR’S $250,000 INVESTMENT IN THE FIRM, CLEMENTS DIRECTED THE REPRESENTATIVE TO RAISE EQUITY FROM CUSTOMERS, INCLUDING THE INVESTOR, AND TO STATE THAT INVESTED FUNDS WOULD BE USED FOR THE FIRM’S DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS AND GROWTH. THE REPRESENTATIVE DID SO. HOWEVER, AS CLEMENTS WAS AWARE, THE FIRM WAS FACING A REGULATORY CAPITAL CRISIS AND NEEDED THE INVESTOR’S INVESTMENT TO MEET ITS NET CAPITAL REQUIREMENT AND AVOID ANOTHER SUSPENSION OF ITS SECURITIES BUSINESS. THIS WAS A MATERIAL FACT TO THE INVESTOR. PRIOR TO ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE’S SOLICITATION OF INVESTORS TO PURCHASE EQUITY OR DEBT FROM A HOLDING COMPANY OF THE FIRM’S BRANCH OFFICE, CLEMENTS ADVISED THIS REPRESENTATIVE THAT HE COULD TREAT INVESTOR FUNDS AS HIS OWN. CLEMENTS ALSO KNEW, FROM HIS REVIEW OF THE SENIOR PROMISSORY NOTES ISSUED TO INVESTORS THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE PROMISED TO USE THE PROCEEDS FOR GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES AND GROWING THE HOLDING COMPANY. CLEMENTS WAS OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE, FROM HIS REVIEW OF THE COMPANY’S FINANCIAL RECORDS, THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE WAS ACTUALLY USING PROCEEDS FROM EQUITY INVESTMENTS AND PROMISSORY NOTES FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE’S PERSONAL NEEDS. THE USE OF THE COMPANY’S INVESTMENT PROCEEDS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE’S PERSONAL NEEDS WAS A MATERIAL FACT TO INVESTORS. ACCORDINGLY, CLEMENTS PROVIDED KNOWING AND SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE REPRESENTATIVE IN HIS FRAUDULENT SALE OF THE FIRM’S EQUITY TO AN INVESTOR AND TO THE OTHER REPRESENTATIVE IN HIS FRAUDULENT SALES OF EQUITY OR DEBT IN THE HOLDING COMPANY TO INVESTORS. BY ENGAGING IN THE FOREGOING CONDUCT, CLEMENTS AIDED AND ABETTED VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 10(B) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, RULE 10-5 THEREUNDER.
• Resolution: Decision
• Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Bar (Permanent)
• Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: All capacities
• Duration: Indefinite
• Start Date: 5/17/2018 Registration Capacities Affected: any principal or supervisory capacity
• Duration: Indefinite
• Start Date: 5/17/2018 Sanctions: Monetary Penalty other than Fines
• Sanction Details :: Amount: $20,676.56 Sanctions: Restitution
• Sanction Details :: Amount: $350,000.00
• Regulator Statement: Extended Hearing Panel decision rendered September 20, 2016 wherein Clements is barred from association with any FINRA member firm in all capacities; ordered, jointly and severally, to pay hearing costs in the amount of $19,130.96; and ordered to offer rescission to defrauded customers of their equity interests at the original purchase price (minus any dividends or interest payments received), plus interest from the date of purchase. The sanctions are based on findings that Clements, his member firm, and a registered representative of the firm willfully violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and FINRA Rules 2020 and 2010 by making material omissions to a firm customer in connection with the customer’s purchase of an equity interest. The findings stated that Clements and the firm, acting through Clements, willfully violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and FINRA Rules 2020 and 2010 by making material misrepresentations and omission to another firm customer in connection with the customer’s equity interest purchase. The findings also stated that the firm and Clements failed in numerous respects to reasonably supervise the firm and the capital raising activities of a holding company owned by the firm. The aiding and abetting charges and the misuse of customer funds charges are dismissed. On October 14, 2016, Clements filed a notice of appeal to the NAC. On October 31, 2016, FINRA notified Clements that his response did not comply with FINRA Rule 9311(c) and provided him 14 days to correct his notice of appeal and refile it. On November 14, 2016, Clements filed an amended notice of appeal to the NAC. The sanctions are not in effect pending the review. NAC Decision rendered May 17, 2018, wherein the NAC modified the sanctions to order restitution instead of rescission and impose the bar in any principal or supervisory capacity, and affirmed the findings imposed by the Office of Hearing Officers (OHO). The sanctions were based on findings that Clements made material misstatements and omissions of material fact in connection with the sale of his member firm’s equity interests and failed to reasonably supervise the firm’s and a holding company’s capital raising efforts. The decision became final June 19, 2018.
• Broker Comment: THE ALLEGATIONS ARE COMPLETELY INACCURATE, MALICIOUS AND SLANDEROUS. CLEMENTS PLANS ON DEMONSTRATING SUCH AND TAKING ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY TO DEFEND AND CORRECT THIS PERSONAL ATTACK ON HIM AND THE FIRM HIS WORKS FOR.

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.

• INTERCOASTAL CAPITAL MARKETS, INC. (CRD#: 83) :: 2/18/2014 – 9/12/2016 :: BOCA RATON, FL
• AVENIR FINANCIAL GROUP (CRD#: 148490) :: 3/8/2012 – 8/9/2016 :: WELLINGTON, FL
• UNION FINANCIAL CORP. (CRD#: 30650) :: 7/6/2009 – 3/3/2010 :: NEW YORK, NY
• JESUP & LAMONT SECURITIES CORP (CRD#: 39056) :: 12/7/2005 – 12/31/2007 :: BOCA RATON, FL
• ORBITEX FUNDS DISTRIBUTOR, INC. (CRD#: 41453) :: 12/4/2002 – 1/5/2005 :: STAMFORD, CT
• CONTINENTAL BROKER-DEALER CORP. (CRD#: 14048) :: 12/17/2003 – 3/11/2004 :: CARLE PLACE, NY
• OLYMPIA ASSET MANAGEMENT,LTD. (CRD#: 126331) :: 9/10/2003 – 9/26/2003 :: NEW YORK, NY
• CREDIT AGRICOLE INDOSUEZ SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 8010) :: 8/11/2000 – 7/18/2001 :: NEW YORK, NY
• LADENBURG, THALMANN & CO., INC. (CRD#: 505) :: 12/7/1998 – 7/11/2000 :: NEW YORK, NY
• LOCKWOOD FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. (CRD#: 40655) :: 7/10/1998 – 11/30/1998 :: MALVERN, PA
• LEHMAN BROTHERS INC. (CRD#: 7506) :: 1/31/1997 – 2/27/1998 :: NEW YORK, NY
• NORTHEAST SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 25996) :: 12/18/1996 – 1/27/1997 :: MITCHELFIELD, NY
• CORPORATE SECURITIES GROUP, INC. (CRD#: 11025) :: 1/11/1995 – 12/23/1996 :: ST. LOUIS, MO
• DICKINSON & CO. (CRD#: 689) :: 1/4/1995 – 1/26/1995
• MONTANO SECURITIES CORPORATION (CRD#: 7887) :: 7/7/1993 – 1/21/1995 :: ORANGE, CA
• CHATFIELD DEAN & CO., INC. (CRD#: 14714) :: 8/14/1991 – 10/21/1991 :: GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO
• DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS INC. (CRD#: 7556) :: 5/22/1989 – 9/11/1990 :: PURCHASE, NY
• BLINDER, ROBINSON & CO., INC. (CRD#: 5096) :: 2/16/1988 – 5/23/1989

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 Michael Todd Clements, 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 Michael Clements

In order to prevail in an investment fraud lawsuit or FINRA arbitration cases, you must be able to assert a viable ‘cause of action’.

Michael Todd Clements – 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 (1702071) for the broker – Michael Todd Clements
• 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 ‘FraudHalt.com’, 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/michael-todd-clements/.