Talk:Raymond James Financial/Archives/2014

Failed verification: Stadium
"The stadium has been considered the “Crown Jewel of the NFL,” due largely to its pirate-themed atmosphere. Foxsports.com has rated the venue as the best NFL stadium.[9]" I could not verify the above sentences from the source given: http://www.raymondjames.com/stadium/ --Ronz 20:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made all the necessary changes. Please review again--- user:lkearney1 13 January 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

Page Updates and Controversy Section
During our regular monitoring of social media and our internet reputation, members of the Marketing department at Raymond James noticed that much of the information on this page is outdated and/or incomplete. We would like to take a more proactive approach to updating this information with current numbers, etc. We are not sure who was responsible for originally writing the page, and we would like to make edits so that it reads less like a promotional piece/advertisement.

We would also like to put the following "Controversy" section up for discussion. This section was recently posted on the page, and reads unobjectively. Many of the claims are not reliablity sourced, and the extensiveness of the section was disproportionate relative to both the size of our page and similar sections on competitors' pages. We have left three of our major/significant events on the page, and are including the smaller/unsourced claims here for discussion. We are open to discussing how best to frame this section so that it reads more objectively.

Raymond James has had been one of the most controversial firms with 49 regulatory events and 61 finalized arbitration's including housing several ponzi schemes according to Finra. In spite of all the controversy that surrounds Raymond James, the firm has been vocal about trying to prevent any increase in regulation of the financial services industry. Some of the most notable controversies have included:

In 1997, Charles LeCroy, a Raymond James banker, helped issue bonds in Jefferson County through a noncompetitive process. These bonds ended up funding corrupt activities and led to the county's bankruptcy.

In 2000, NASD regulators censured Raymond James & Associates, Inc. for “yield burning” activities on municipal securities. yield burning involves overcharges by brokerage firms on Treasury securities purchased with proceeds from the sale of municipal bonds. Yield burning by brokerage firms jeopardized the tax-exempt status of interest paid to holders of those bonds.The multi-million dollar settlement resolved the civil fraud charges under the False Claims Act against Raymond James. The payments made by Raymond James will also resolve certain tax-related claims of the Internal Revenue Service.

In 2000, Raymond James was paid $650,000 to undertake the merger of HomeGold with smaller firms. The minimal amount of due diligence conducted by the firm prevented them from discovering the fraud that was going on. The parent firm later went bankrupt causing millions in losses and one of the biggest fraud cases in the state of South Carolina.

In 2003, Raymond James was found guilty of overcharging investors who made large purchases of mutual funds. There were nearly 160,000 trades that were overcharged and Raymond James had no systems in place to capture these trades.,

In 2005, the NASD fined Raymond James $750,000 for violations stemming from a failure to supervise the firm’s fee-based brokerage accounts.

In 2007, three ex-Raymond James employees sued, saying they were paid less than men and denied opportunities.

In 2008, Jerry Rose was found to be conducting a ponzi scheme using Raymond James as custodian to the assets which amounted to over $16 million.

In 2008, Raymond James received lots of criticism for using obscure provisions under SOX in which they denied whistle-blowing claims on the basis that the claims were made against a subsidiary company. These laws were reversed when the new Frank Dowd act was put into place on July 21, 2010. Raymond James was mentioned as one of the companies that abused the laws, as a means to conduct ethical and legal grounds. This included the case of John Hughart v. Raymond James in which the complaints regarding lax supervision in compliance was overlooked on the grounds that the employee worked a a subsidiary and therefore had no opportunity for restitution from Raymond James.

In 2009, evidence indicated that Mary McCarty put Raymond James in line for bond underwriting work in Palm Beach county to profit from the deals. These actions spanned over a decade-long period and she profiteered from both Raymond James and Bear Sterns.

In 2010, an executive at Raymond James, Stephen Fredericks, was fired for what he alleged as having cancer. The reasons cited for his expulsion from the company were symptoms of his cancer treatments.

In 2010, Raymond James was forced to fire Gregory Buchholz who chaired a Connecticut town's board of finance. An investigation by local and federal authorities alleged misappropriation of funds. Raymond James hired Mr. Buchholz despite his previous termination from Edward Jones for mishandling client account.

Twenty firms were fined a total of $1.65 million, including a fine of $90,000 levied against Raymond James & Associates, Inc. “Accurate and timely trade reporting ensures that dealers and investors alike obtain an accurate picture of market activity and prices – facilitating a dealer’s ability to price municipal securities accurately and an investor’s ability to make informed investment decisions,” said an NASD spokesperson.

The NASD censured and fined Raymond James Financial, Inc. $400,000 for failing to make required disclosures about its registered representatives in a timely manner. Such disclosures are due in 30 days but, according to the NASD's sanction order, 60% of Raymond James’ reports were late.

Canadian regulators sanctioned Raymond James, Ltd., a subsidiary of Raymond James Financial, Inc., for trading violations regarding client priority, order marking, audit trail and supervision. The firm was fined $400,000 plus $125,000 in costs and one of its supervisors was fined an additional $50,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor048 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Reads like advertisement
This single edit rewrote almost the entire article, making it sound like a promotional piece.

After formatting all the references, I removed the sections that had no third-party sources and seemed highly promotional. I think the article needs more work per WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. --Ronz 20:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the next step is to remove all content that is highly promotional and not supported by third-party, reliable sources. --Ronz 21:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I read your edits, but I fail to see how the history of the company is a sales pitch. Nor, how the structure of the company has anything to do with marketing the company.  Raymond James has simply offered a description of itself.  I was disappointed to see this removed since I was looking for information about the company.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.220.28 (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine
Reads like the issue of the fine is in dispute, when it is not. There's a lengthy discussion of the circumstances surrounding the charges and settlement and if financial scammers are to be flagged their history should reflect that.

http://www.stockbroker-fraud.com/lawyer-attorney-1222573.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acaryatid (talk • contribs) 04:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved to talk for discussion: Unsuitable sales activities
I've moved the following here for discussion after another editor removed it without an edit summary. I think the reference is fine, though I'd like to see another from an independent source. --Ronz (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsuitable sales activities
In February 2007, the NASD announced a $2.75 million fine against Raymond James for failing to maintain an adequate supervisory system to oversee the sales activities of over 1,000 producing branch managers working in offices throughout the United States. One of the branch managers was permanently barred from the industry for recommending unsuitable mutual fund and variable annuity purchases to elderly or retirement age customers and making misleading statements to customers in correspondence. http://www.finra.org/PressRoom/NewsReleases/2007NewsReleases/P018681 News Release