Rodney Hunter Schurg is currently employed as a Broker and/or Investment Adviser at LPL FINANCIAL LLC located at 405 MAIN STREET, LANDER, WY, 82520.
Rodney Hunter Schurg has worked at LPL FINANCIAL LLC since July 15, 2016
Disclosure History
Rodney Hunter Schurg has 2 Disclosure Event(s).
Date: September 21, 2016 Category: Customer Dispute Allegations: The client alleges her former financial advisor failed to follow her instructions to invest in ten equities in May 2016. Settlement Amount: $550.00 Broker Comment: Until my position with Edward Jones was terminated on 7/5/2016, I had been a financial advisor with Edward Jones for 14 years. I had extremely good relationships with my clients and made their investment needs and financial goals a priority. It was my practice to talk to and meet with clients on a regular basis so that I knew what their needs and goals were. I always disclosed costs and discussed the benefits and risks associated with any investment strategy my clients were interested in. The Claimant was a client of mine while I was employed by Edward Jones and had been for some time. The Claimant had an Advisory Solutions acct I opened for her.In early May 2016, likely around May 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, she came into the office to discuss the possibility of selling out of her Edward Jones Advisory Solutions acct and investing in individual stocks as she was unhappy with the performance of the Edward Jones Advisory Solutions acct. I presented The Claimant with a diversified proposal for several different stocks and she agreed to this proposal. When selling out of Advisory Solutions the time frame is trade plus 3 days and then an additional day to remove the Advisory restriction and allow for the purchase of stocks. I explained to her that this process would take several days. The Claimant understood what the process was and what the timeline was in terms of money being available for investment and she said she was fine with that time frame. She did not mention that there was any urgency to the change in investment and knew that once the money was available for investment purposes we would have to have another discussion before any investments were purchased. My last day in the office, before I took leave under the FMLA, was 5/5/2016; 2 or 3 days after my meeting with The Claimant. At the time I met with her, I did not know that I would be leaving my Edward Jones branch office and wouldn't return. Prior to leaving I was told I could not contact any clients while on leave and could not conduct any business. I was also told not to worry about clients because a temporary adv was coming to assist with clients and everything would be taken care of in my absence. The temporary advisor's role is to cover for adv who are away from their branches. During my first week of FMLA leave, I was contacted by an Associate from the Edward Jones home office. She had some questions about my BOA and pay for her. During my call with her I asked about clients and she confirmed that everything would be taken care of and said I should not worry about anything while I was out on FMLA leave. I was subsequently terminated on 7/5/2016. Accordingly, I had no way of servicing any client acct after 5/5/2016. Because I left on FMLA leave only a day or two after selling out of Advisory Solutions and the funds did not settle for several days after and because I was not able to contact clients or conduct any business while on leave as instructed by Edward Jones, it was impossible for me to have invested her money in the stocks like we had discussed. There was a temp adv servicing my clients while I was on leave. I was told she would be bringing clients into the office to review their accts. Once the money in the acct was ready to be invested, notices would have been provided that the temp adv would have received during the time period she was covering my office. The new adv has been in the office for several months. If the re-investment of funds for The Claimant wasn't done by the temp adv, this is clearly something that the new adv should have been aware of and something he should have addressed. I was expressly assured by both my Regional Leader and the Associate from Client Relations several times that all of my clients' needs would be served while I was away on leave. I am surprised to learn that the money was not invested. After completion of the firm's investigation into the client's allegations, the clients claim was resolved in the amount of $550.00.
Date: January 04, 2006 Category: Customer Dispute Allegations: THE SON, WHO IS A TRUSTEE ON THIS ACCOUNT, QUESTIONED THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUITABLILITY OF SEVERAL PURCHASES AND SALES THAT TOOK PLACE IN THIS ACCOUNT IN 2004. THE CLIENT WAS CONCERNED BY THE MATURITY OF THE BONDS THAT WERE PURCHASED IN HIS MOTHER'S ACCOUNT, SINCE SHE IS 92 YEARS OLD. HE ALSO QUESTIONED THE COMMISSIONS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE SALE OF MUTUAL FUNDS AND THE SUBSEQUENT PURCHASE OF BONDS WITHIN THE ACCOUNT. HE QUESTIONED WHY THE GROWTH MUTUAL FUNDS WEREN'T EXCHANGED INTO BOND FUNDS AT NET ASSET VALUE. Damage Amount Requested: $15,000.00 Broker Comment: THE IR DISCUSSED THESE TRADES WITH THE SON, WHO IS THE TRUSTEE ON HIS MOTHER'S ACCOUNTS. THE IR SUGGESTED MOVING OUT OF A COUPLE OF MUTUAL FUNDS THAT HAD NOT PERFORMED WELL AND PURCHASING AMERICAN FUNDS. THE PURCHASES WERE MADE AT THE $100,000.00 BREAKPOINT AND THE CLIENT SIGNED THE NECESSARY SWITCH LETTERS. BEFORE ANY OF THESE TRADES TOOK PLACE, THE TRUSTEE WANTED TO SPEAK WITH THE IR'S FATHER, WHO USED TO MANAGE THE ACCOUNT, TO GET HIS OPINION. THEY SPOKE ON MARCH 25, 2004 AND THE FATHER AGREED WITH HIS SON'S RECOMMENDATIONS. THE SON FOLLOWED UP WITH THE CLIENT LATER THAT DAY TO RECEIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE TRADES. THE IR ALSO SUGGESTED LONGER TERM BONDS IN ONE OF THE TWO ACCOUNTS AND ALL OF THESE BONDS HAD THE ESTATE FEATURE. THE SON APPROVED ALL OF THESE TRADES THAT WERE MADE IN 2004 AND 2005 AND I FEEL THAT THEY WERE SUITABLE FOR HIS MOTHER'S ACCOUNTS.
More Information
All individuals registered to sell securities or provide investment advice are required to disclose customer complaints and arbitrations, regulatory actions, employment terminations, bankruptcy filings and criminal or civil judicial proceedings.
A disclosure includes information about customer disputes, disciplinary events and financial matters on the broker's record as reported by securities regulators, the individual broker, and any involved firms. Some of these items may involve pending actions or allegations that have not been resolved or proven. The presence of a disclosure does not automatically indicate any wrongdoing.
BrokerCheck is the source of the data included in this Report. The data was compiled on June 29, 2018.
To view the full report for Rodney Hunter Schurg, click here.
The use of BrokerCheck data is subject to the BrokerCheck Terms of Use.
×
Outdated Information
If you discover any errors or outdated information on this Website, please contact us and we will promptly correct such errors or outdated information.
If BrokerCheck® is the source of such errors or outdated information, please contact FINRA at (301) 590-6500.
×
BrokerSearch Removal
Brokersearch.info will not fully remove items from this Website without an applicable court order designating them for removal. Investors rely on the information available on this Website to decide whether to choose or retain a broker or investment adviser.
Upon written request, we may remove certain page(s) from appearing in search engine results using the robots.txt protocol.
When a person searches for your name using Google, Bing, Yahoo! and other search engines the page(s) from Brokersearch.info would not appear in the search results.
Please contact us to learn more about Search Engine Removal.