Terrance Kent Meek is currently employed as a Broker and/or Investment Adviser at EDWARD JONES located at 150 N HWY 54 W, LINTON, IN, 47441.
Terrance Kent Meek has worked at EDWARD JONES since March 20, 1986
Terrance Kent Meek has 5 Disclosure Event(s).
Date: August 23, 2010 Category: Customer Dispute Allegations: CLIENT STATES IN 2003 SHE AND HER HUSBAND MET WITH THE FA TO BUY CDS. CLIENT INDICATES FA INFORMED HIM WE HAD CDS AND SHE BELIEVES THAT IS WHAT SHE PURCHASED AS DOCUMENTED BY THE MEMO LINE ON HER CHECK WHICH REFLECTS CDS. CLIENT CLAIMS OVER THE YEARS SHE WOULD CONTACT FA FOR HIM TO EXPLAIN HER ACCOUNT, HE WOULD INFORM HER HE WOULD GET BACK WITH HER AND NEVER WOULD. CLIENT INDICATES SHE HAS LEARNED THAT LEHMAN BROTHERS BONDS WERE PURCHASED RATHER THAN CDS AND CLIENT WANTS HER CDS BACK. FILING REQUIRED, LOSSES EXCEED $5,000. Damage Amount Requested: $5,000.00 Broker Comment: OUR RECORDS REFLECT ON MARCH 3, 2003, GEORGIA POWER NOTES WERE PURCHASED IN PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED JOINT ACCOUNTS AND ON NOVEMBER 19, 2004, THE NOTES WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE ABOVE-REFERENCED SINGLE REGISTRATION ACCOUNT. ON APRIL 3, 2003 AND JULY 9, 2004, LEHMAN BONDS WERE PURCHASED IN ANOTHER PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED JOINT ACCOUNT AND THE BONDS WERE ALSO TRANSFERRED TO THE SINGLE REGISTRATION ACCOUNT ON JULY 19, 2004. CLIENT ALSO PURCHASED A LEHMAN BOND IN HER RETIREMENT ACCOUNT ON JULY 9, 2004. THE GEORGIA POWER BONDS AND LEHMAN BROTHERS BONDS HAVE CLEARLY BEEN REFLECTED AS CORPORATE BONDS ON THE CLIENT'S ACCOUNT STATEMENTS, AS SUCH, WE ARE UNCERTAIN WHY THE CLIENT BELIEVED THE LEHMAN BONDS WERE CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITS. THE FA HAS STATED HE WOULD HAVE NEVER INFORMED THE CLIENT THE BONDS WERE CDS. FA HAS INDICATED HE WOULD HAVE EXPLAINED TO THE CLIENT THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE CORPORATE BONDS AND REVIEWED THE DETAILS OF THE BONDS WITH HER. IN ADDITION, FA HAS STATED OVER THE YEARS HE HAS WORKED WITH THE CLIENT, HE HAS TAKEN HER TELEPHONE CALLS IF AVAILABLE AND HE VEHEMENTLY DENIES THAT ANY CALLS AND/OR CONCERNS WERE NOT ADDRESSED. OUR RECORDS REFLECT IN ADDITION TO THE CORPORATE BONDS (REFERENCED ABOVE) PURCHASED IN THE CLIENT'S ACCOUNTS, CLIENT HAS ALSO PURCHASED A GOVERNMENT AGENCY BOND (GNMA). CLIENT HAS NOT INDICATED ANY CONCERNS RELATING TO THE BONDS WHICH WERE ABLE TO BE SOLD NEAR THE AMOUNT SHE INVESTED; HOWEVER, LEHMAN BROTHERS DID FILE BANKRUPTCY IN SEPT. 2008 AND THE VALUE OF THE BONDS HAS BEEN GREATLY IMPACTED. THE NEWS SURROUNDING THE LEHMAN MATTER WAS A SURPRISE TO MANY IN THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY AND WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND CLIENT'S DISAPPOINTMENT REGARDING THE DECLINE IN VALUE OF THESE BONDS
Date: January 15, 2004 Category: Customer Dispute Allegations: CLIENT CLAIMS THAT IR INVESTED HIS MONEY TOO AGGRESSIVELY BASED ON CLIENT'S AGE, INCOME AND INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES. CLIENT CLAIMS THAT IR'S MISHANDLING OF HIS ACCOUNT CAUSED LOSSES IN EXCESS OF $5,000. Damage Amount Requested: $5,000.00 Broker Comment: IR STATED HE DISCUSSED WITH CLIENT IN DETAIL THE DIFFERENCES WITH THE MUTUAL FUND CLASS SHARES AND HOW THE B-SHARES WOULD STILL MEET THE CLIENT'S DISTRIBUTION NEEDS WITHOUT INCURRING ANY ADDITIONAL FEES OR COMMISSIONS. IR INDICATED HE EXPLAINED THE FIRM'S INVESTMENT PHILOSOPHY OF BUYING AND HOLDING QUALITY INVESTMENTS FOR THE LONG TERM. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE IR MET WITH THE CLIENT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS TO REVIEW THE ACCOUNT AND ALSO MET WITH CLIENT ON OTHER OCCASIONS TO DISCUSS MARKET CONCERNS AND MAKE CHANGES TO CLIENT'S PORTFOLIO. AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASES, THE CLIENT WOULD HAVE RECEIVED TRADE CONFIRMATIONS AS WELL AS THE APPROPRIATE PROSPECTUSES. IN ADDITION, CLIENT WOULD HAVE RECEIVED STATEMENTS WHICH PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING THE INVESTMENTS HELD IN THE ACCOUNT AS WELL AS REFLECTING ACCOUNT ACTIVITY. IT IS OUR OPINION ALL TRANSACTIONS EFFECTED IN THE ACCOUNT WERE AUTHORIZED. IN ADDITION, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THE INVESTMENTS PURCHASED AND/OR HELD IN THE ACCOUNT WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES OF THE ACCOUNT. THE DECLINE IN THE VALUE OF THE ACCOUNT CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO MARKET FLUCTUATION AS WELL AS APPROXIMATELY $64,200 IN WITHDRAWALS. CLAIM DENIED.
Date: July 19, 2002 Category: Customer Dispute Allegations: CLIENT STATES THEIR NET WORTH HAS EVAPORATED. CLIENTS INDICATED THE IRA HAS DROPPED $91,000, ROTH IRA DROPPED $3,500 AND OTHER SAVINGS DROPPED $5,900, DUE TO THE ADVICE OF TERRY MEEK. CLIENTS STATE THEY HAD NO INVESTMENT EXPERIENCE AND COULD HAVE BEEN PUT IN SECURE FUNDS THAT WOULD HAVE PRESERVED THEIR PRINCIPAL. Damage Amount Requested: $100,400.00 Broker Comment: THE IR STATED THAT HE STARTED THE CLIENTS OUT IN A GROWTH PORTFOLIO WITH MUTUAL FUNDS AND INDIVIDUAL STOCKS AS THE CLIENTS WANTED GROWTH. BUT, AS TIME WENT ON, CUSTOMER INSISTED ON BUYING AND SELLING TECHNOLOGY ISSUES. THE IR DISCOUNTED MOST TRADES AS THEY WERE UNSOLICITED. CLAIM DENIED.
Date: May 08, 2002 Category: Customer Dispute Allegations: ON 1/25/02 THE CLIENT PURCHASED 500 SHARES OF TYCO. THE CLIENT STATES MEEK PURCHASEDTYCO WITHOUT HIS AUTHORIZATION. CLIENT REQUESTED TRADE BE RESCINDED AND MEEK INDICATED THIS COULD NOT BE DONE. LOSSES EXCEED $5,000. Damage Amount Requested: $5,000.00 Settlement Amount: $11,349.88 Broker Comment: ACCORDING TO MEEK HE ACCEPTED A GOOD ORDER FROM THE CLIENT. ALTHOUGH MEEKBELIEVES WE ACCEPTED A GOOD ORDER, MEEK HAS DECIDED TO MAKE A GOOD FAITH OFFER TOTHE CLIENT DUE TO THE APPARENT MISUNDERSTANDING. THE CLIENT'S ACCOUNT HAS BEEN CREDITED FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE TYCO STOCK PURCHASE.
Date: September 22, 1998 Category: Customer Dispute Allegations: SON-IN-LAW OF CUSTOMER CLAIMS THE MUTUAL FUNDCUSTOMER PURCHASED FROM IR EMPLOYED BY EDWARD JONES WAS NOTSUITABLE FOR HER ACCOUNT. STATES THAT A FUND WITH A SIX YEARSURRENDER CLAUSE SHOULD NOT BE SOLD TO AN 87 YEAR OLD CUSTOMER. ALSO INDICATES CUSTOMER NEEDED INCOME AND THE FUND WAS NOTSUITABLE FOR AN INCOME INVESTMENT. REQUEST THE RETURN OF THE$6,208.27 INVESTED. Damage Amount Requested: $6,208.27 Broker Comment: THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS AND RESPONSES OF THE IRWERE PROVIDED TO THE NASD. IR CLAIMS HE EXPLAINED ALL THEFEATURES OF THE MUTUAL FUNDS TO THE CUSTOMER PRIOR TO THEPURCHASE. ALSO CLAIMS HE REPRESENTED CD'S, A BOND AND MONEYMARKET FUND TO THE CUSTOMER ALONG WITH THE MUTUAL FUNDS BUT THECUSTOMER CHOSE TO INVEST ONLY IN THE MUTUAL FUND. INDICATESTHE CUSTOMER SPOKE TO HER DAUGHTER AND SON-IN-LAW PRIOR TO THEPURCHASE. CLAIM DENIED.NOT PROVIDED
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 Terrance Kent Meek, click here.
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.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.
How to choose a broker or investment adviser. Learn More