Janney Montgomery Scott

Response rejected, as the complaint highlights and addresses Janney Montgomery's failure to respect generally accepted brokerage practices, specifically advising clients of abor extraordinary charges, without notice or pre-charge advisory to the client In addition, and prior to the formal complaint letters of April 15, May 3, 2013, directed to Senior Management of the firm, there were several telephone calls with the broker herself, to attempt to reach a compromise on the abusive commission charged, without noticeAll efforts were rejected In addition, based on our family's decades long history with the firm, broker, and predecessor entities, we had recently moved eight (8) new accounts to Janney, as we had enjoyed a long history of agreeable management of family accounts, with reasonable and acceptable pre-disclosed commission activity over the yearsUpon incurring the unannounced, and unwarranted commission fee on the subject trade, and based upon Janney's refusal to offer any compromise, all accounts were subsequently moved to another brokerageJanney promptly assessed each of those accounts with a $termination fee, $totalFurther, the closure fee was in addition to our purchase of an annuity product which yielded the broker a sizable commission on that specific saleThe firm was more than adequately compensated for all activities, trades, and purchases, all within a period of less than a yearThe extraordinary commission charged, subject of this complaint, was well in excess of any previous trade, and the firm and broker specifically avoided communication and pre-notice of anticipated fees to be charged, before the trade occurredAs a result, after politely and reasonably requesting a compromise on the commission charged, unsuccessfully, we incurred additional costs and expenses to relocate the (8) accounts Therefore, we reiterate this specific commission was well beyond any previous trade fee, and was charged without pre-notice or pre-advisoryJanney had been very well compensated for other products and services we purchased, and our commitment to the firm was clearly evidenced by our opening several new accounts and introducing new clients to the firm and brokerThe commission charged was abusive and unfair, without pre-notice Respectfully, [redacted]

After reading the complaint on this Revdex.com site with the business response from Matthew G, who is an attorney from the Phila office, I was treated with the same disrespect that the other complaint received Janney's legal department holds the senior citizen and their money hostage In my case an unauthorized trade was made without contacting me, without sending me any information on the fund, and the broker failed to notify me when the fund had lost 5% which was my maximum allowance for lossNot only did the broker not notify me of the loss at 5%, but never notified me when the fund had lost 25%+ To compound the error, I had signed up for consolidated paper statements, but since I signed a form for electronic access, Janney decided to not sent any paper statements to me Janney also knew I never signed up for online accessMy review is how Janney's legal dept especially Matthew Gtreats customersYou are treated like a second class citizen, who does not deserve an answerBy e-mail, Matthew G promised to explain these irregularities such as no phone records to support the trade, no notes to support telling me about a fund outside of my risk tolerance area, no explanation of how Janney tried to internally raise & change my risk tolerance level, and last why did I not get paper statements, after signing a consolidated paper request multiple times The offer to explain has never happened despite many remindersThe last review area is about the Compliance Dept in PhilaI asked to speak with the Compliance Director Matthew Gstated that if I tried to call the Compliance Director, the call would be sent back to himThey would not speak to me Today I found out there is no Compliance Director in the Phila office I found multiple advertisements that the Phila Office has been searching for at least days for a Director Telling the truth to clients is not something that Matthew G feels is necessaryThis review is how clients are treated by the Legal Dept, especially Matthew G from the Phila office Clients who want Janney to "fairly evaluate a complaint" and to make sure a broker was adequately supervised, will NOT get a fair evaluation from that legal office and Matthew GAnother example which supports an unwillingness for Janney and Matthew G to fairly evaluate a claim, was in relation to losing paperwork in my file Matthew G stated he did not have the consolidated request forms I had signed multiple times in the Janney file which directed Janney to send me a paper copy Luckily I had a copy of all those signature pages One has to question Matthew G's ethical standards or question how so many signature pages can conveniently be lost by Janney??? After my complaint to the broker, and the broker admitting he did not call me as he was embarrassed and admitted he was wrong, I am being ignored by the legal deptThey are holding my money hostage and refuse to answer questions about their internal irregularities such as "internally" changing my investment objective after I discovered their unauthorized trade Janney sent me a very "sneaky" letter which stated that a change was made to my investment objective If I do not reply that the change is incorrect, the change will be confirmed as correct So Janney can change your investment objective (without a signature) All they do is send you a letter which looks like advertisement with no signature on the letterIf you are not diligent in reading every letter, and do not catch this paragraph letter, your investment objective will be altered so they can have a defense that you asked for more risk Matthew G has refused to explain how this could happen when I never authorized any change to my investment objectives in any accountSenors need to have more protections in place to prevent brokers from taking advantage and making trades which they know are outside of the senior's risk profile Janney seems to push their brokers especially at the end of the year to trade funds that they highlight in their newsletter Also having letters printed where the client has the duty to read every piece of mail and catch Janney making unauthorized changes in their risk profile, especially after a mistake has been identified, looks like internal manipulation of clients accountsIt has been over months since I discovered the unauthorized trade I have sent Matthew G every piece of paper he requested within hours of the requestAs stated above, my review is how Janney's legal dept especially Matthew Gtreats customersYou are treated like a second class citizen, who does not deserve an answerFrom my vantage point, after waiting 3+ months for any information, Janney seems to want to push seniors into mediation or arbitration, even when the issues are clearly black & whiteEven after a broker admits he was wrong, he knew my very low tolerance for loss, but was embarrassed to call and tell me about the loss He thought the fund would come backThe words "I am sorry this has happened" do not seem to exist in the Janney Montgomery company Janney makes a senior have to fight to get back what was stolen from them Janney has no remorse that they have not adequately supervised their brokersWith seniors aging and needing more protection from their financial institutions against brokers who will make trades outside the persons risk objective, Janney Montgomery is NOT a brokerage firm that supports and protects seniorsIn my case, with Janney internally changing my risk objective WITHOUT MY PERMISSION OR SIGNATURE after the error was identified, this is a good example of why seniors should stay far away from Janney Montgomery

Response rejected, as the complaint highlights and addresses Janney Montgomery's failure to respect generally accepted brokerage practices, specifically advising clients of abnormal or extraordinary charges, without notice or pre-charge advisory to the client.
In addition, and prior to the formal complaint letters of April 15, May 3, 2013, directed to Senior Management of the firm, there were several telephone calls with the broker herself, to attempt to reach a compromise on the abusive commission charged, without notice. All efforts were rejected.
In addition, based on our family's decades long history with the firm, broker, and predecessor entities, we had recently moved eight (8) new accounts to Janney, as we had enjoyed a long history of agreeable management of family accounts, with reasonable and acceptable pre-disclosed commission activity over the years. Upon incurring the unannounced, and unwarranted commission fee on the subject trade, and based upon Janney's refusal to offer any compromise, all accounts were subsequently moved to another brokerage. Janney promptly assessed each of those accounts with a $100 termination fee, $800.00 total. Further, the closure fee was in addition to our purchase of an annuity product which yielded the broker a sizable commission on that specific sale. The firm was more than adequately compensated for all activities, trades, and purchases, all within a period of less than a year. The extraordinary commission charged, subject of this complaint, was well in excess of any previous trade, and the firm and broker specifically avoided communication and pre-notice of anticipated fees to be charged, before the trade occurred. As a result, after politely and reasonably requesting a compromise on the commission charged, unsuccessfully, we incurred additional costs and expenses to relocate the (8) accounts.
Therefore, we reiterate this specific commission was well beyond any previous trade fee, and was charged without pre-notice or pre-advisory. Janney had been very well compensated for other products and services we purchased, and our commitment to the firm was clearly evidenced by our opening several new accounts and introducing new clients to the firm and broker. The commission charged was abusive and unfair, without pre-notice.
Respectfully,
[redacted]

November 18, 2014
Dear [redacted]:
I am writing in response to your letter dated November 6, 2014 regarding the above-referenced complaint filed with the Revdex.com (“Revdex.com”). [redacted] complained directly to Janney Montgomery Scott LLC (“Janney”) regarding this issue in...

April and May 2013. Janney researched his complaint and provided a response to him in July 2013. Janney does not intend to take any further action regarding this matter.Please feel free to contact me directly at ###-###-#### if you have any questions.Sincerely,Matthew *. G

Thank you Reviewer696713 for exposing Janney Montgomery Scott for who they are - GREEDY, money-hungry, "they say they want to help your financial future but they really don't give a fiduciary st about you" ss.

The fact that "Janney does not intend to take any further action regarding this matter" means that their lawyers had reviewed this and are confident that no FINRA nor SEC violations were committed, but that does not excused their clear, greedy behavior. Janney stockbrokers are known to stretch the limits to take every advantage of their clients without crossing any legal lines - at the expense of the clients.

Don't let them get away with this.
If FINRA nor SEC will not prosecute, let the internet do it!
I highly suggest you don't redact the name of the broker responsible. Tell your story (make sure you have documents to back up your story) and expose that greedy broker, name him or her and have their name imprinted on the world wide web for all to read.

Here is an excellent example:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/pearl-lee/philadelphia-pennsylvania-19103/pearl-le...⇄ /> Google "Pearl Lee Janney" and you can read all her negative reviews.
Like any business reviews, this is all legal and will warn the public and prevent the potential client from hiring this individual as their broker.

Review: Ms. Lorrie G[redacted], and the firm, Janney Montgomery Scott, had managed my father's accounts for over 20 years. There was a track record of modest and reasonable service charges and commissions assessed, all which were reviewed, accepted, and paid without issue by my father. Upon his death in March, 2012, and related to his final bequests, a sale of (1) security position was required to obtain liquidity in the account to honor his final bequests. Without pre-notice, or advisory of what the sale would cost, Ms. R[redacted] assessed a $3,184.60 commission on a sale of (1) position, representing a .988% commission rate - without notice or pre-advisory of the intended commission assessment. The firm, nor Ms. R[redacted] would reconsider the extraordinary commission assessment, after several complaint letters were forwarded and advanced through the Janney brokerage. The commission assessed was more than 500% of any commission rate charged for previous trade activity during the account tenure with Janney, while he was alive. To our dismay, neither Ms. R[redacted], nor the firm, would reconsider our requests to negotiate a compromise fee assessment, and felt there was no responsibility on the firm or Ms. R[redacted] for a common courtesy pre-notice (before the transaction was processed) what the intended commission would be, as such, we had no notice or customary advisory of what the transaction would cost. We did have options available to avoid such a extra-ordinary commission charge, without executing this transaction. It is clear Ms. R[redacted], and Janney Montgomery Scott were simply taking advantage of my Dad's account, after his death, to gain unusual and inappropriate commission income - without pre-notice to the client. We feel the Revdex.com should post a warning on the rating of this firm, broker, that estate accounts may incur charges far in excess of charges and commissions incurred while the account holder is alive. They applied an unfair commission rate, after my father's passing, without the courtesy of a call or pre-notice of the intended commission.Desired Settlement: Using comparable commission rates charged on previous transactions, Janney Montgomery should refund no less than $2,750.00 related to this one (1) transaction.

Business

Response:

November 18, 2014Dear [redacted]:I am writing in response to your letter dated November 6, 2014 regarding the above-referenced complaint filed with the Revdex.com (“Revdex.com”). [redacted] complained directly to Janney Montgomery Scott LLC (“Janney”) regarding this issue in April and May 2013. Janney researched his complaint and provided a response to him in July 2013. Janney does not intend to take any further action regarding this matter.Please feel free to contact me directly at ###-###-#### if you have any questions.Sincerely,Matthew *. G

Consumer

Response:

Response rejected, as the complaint highlights and addresses Janney Montgomery's failure to respect generally accepted brokerage practices, specifically advising clients of abnormal or extraordinary charges, without notice or pre-charge advisory to the client.

In addition, and prior to the formal complaint letters of April 15, May 3, 2013, directed to Senior Management of the firm, there were several telephone calls with the broker herself, to attempt to reach a compromise on the abusive commission charged, without notice. All efforts were rejected.

In addition, based on our family's decades long history with the firm, broker, and predecessor entities, we had recently moved eight (8) new accounts to Janney, as we had enjoyed a long history of agreeable management of family accounts, with reasonable and acceptable pre-disclosed commission activity over the years. Upon incurring the unannounced, and unwarranted commission fee on the subject trade, and based upon Janney's refusal to offer any compromise, all accounts were subsequently moved to another brokerage. Janney promptly assessed each of those accounts with a $100 termination fee, $800.00 total. Further, the closure fee was in addition to our purchase of an annuity product which yielded the broker a sizable commission on that specific sale. The firm was more than adequately compensated for all activities, trades, and purchases, all within a period of less than a year. The extraordinary commission charged, subject of this complaint, was well in excess of any previous trade, and the firm and broker specifically avoided communication and pre-notice of anticipated fees to be charged, before the trade occurred. As a result, after politely and reasonably requesting a compromise on the commission charged, unsuccessfully, we incurred additional costs and expenses to relocate the (8) accounts.

Therefore, we reiterate this specific commission was well beyond any previous trade fee, and was charged without pre-notice or pre-advisory. Janney had been very well compensated for other products and services we purchased, and our commitment to the firm was clearly evidenced by our opening several new accounts and introducing new clients to the firm and broker. The commission charged was abusive and unfair, without pre-notice.

Respectfully,