Consultus Financial, LLC.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The response is full of erroneous, false and or misleading information.  It does not address the issues I outlined in my complaint regarding the non-performance of promised services.  It appears to be a very superficial response with little factual substance designed at intimidation.1.        The response states that we sent our letter to Lawrence B[redacted] who no longer works at Consultus.  This is confusing; we never had any dealings with a Lawrence B[redacted], we sent our e mail complaint letter to Danny B[redacted].  Our Consultus advisor was Danny B[redacted].  Danny B[redacted]’s Facebook and Linkedin information as well as the Consultus web site states Danny B[redacted] works for Consultus.  It is true we never heard from Danny after 12/12/16 when we filed a complaint to Consultus, nevertheless there appears to be evidence that suggests a Danny B[redacted] currently works for Consultus and we certainly do not know a Lawrence B[redacted].  Perhaps this can be easily clarified, however this part of the response is very misleading.  We did not send anything to Lawrence B[redacted], we have never heard of this name, we sent our correspondence to Danny B[redacted] who appears to have been and may still be an employee at Consultus.2.       The response implies that the responder, Hank B[redacted], did not know of my initial complaint letter because it was sent only to Lawrence B[redacted] (actually Danny B[redacted] was the direct recipient).  The responder states in his response dated 7/16/17 that he only received my complaint letter Thursday 7/22/17 (which is impossible since today's date is 7/20/17).   In fact it is a false statement since I copied him on the initial e mail 12/12/16 and I have four different e mail responses from Hank B[redacted] 12/21/17, 1/6/17, 2/21/17, and 3/6/17.  On two occasions Hank specifically states Danny would get back with us regarding the complaint, (which never happened).   Hank knew about the complaint for the past 7 months.  (These e mails referenced above from Hank B[redacted] are sent with my complaint as an attachment and are in the possession of Revdex.com).3.       The response states that Consultus filled every requirement of the engagement letter.  This is not factual.  The full details of the services they promised and their failure to deliver are outlined in my 12/12/16 complaint letter to Consultus.  This letter was filed in my complaint to the Revdex.com.  Briefly, I hired Consultus as my financial advisor because: 1) I needed to make a decision on when was the financially sound time to start social security, 2) I needed advice on a life tax strategy to minimize future tax, and 3) I was concerned about having all my money in mutual funds and was interested in diversifying into other investments, perhaps real estate.   I wanted a comparative analysis of my current investments versus other alternative strategies showing annual tax paid and net worth over a 30 year period.  I never received this.  I was given something that had obvious errors (they agreed- see attached e mail from Danny B[redacted] 11/4/16) but due to either their technical inability or intent to not provide the negative tax data of their insurance product recommendations, they never corrected the data and neglected to give me the comparative dollar analysis that I repeatedly requested. I paid $3,000 for the consulting service and received only a lengthy sales pitch to buy their complex insurance products and invest in their company expansion. There were several other issues with their service which I outlined in a letter to Consultus 12/12/17 (to which they have never responded).  I have filed this original letter with the Revdex.com, it contains all the details of Consultus non-performance of services promised.  Incidentally, my expectations of Consultus were in no way unreasonable; after discontinuing Consultus, I received a no cost analysis from another financial consulting company. They promptly provided the above outlined comparative analysis that I requested from Consultus.   With this data, I immediately made a decision and entered into an agreement with them, all within a matter of weeks from start to finish.  Consultus did not fill the promised services and requirements of the engagement letter.  4.       The response states that everything was explained from the beginning.  In late August we received a booklet from Consultus dated 8/19/16.  The disappointing booklet contained specific survey information about our financial situation that we provided Consultus but the majority was generic information.  There was a section with some general investment recommendations and a one page table handout given to us at the plan presentation meeting that contained only a little more specific information.  Among 6 or 7 general items listed, the handout had 4 insurance products listed with TBD next to them.  There was another product described as IRA exit strategy (asset class- business interest).   The next several months we met 2-4 times a month receiving lengthy insurance sales presentations on some of the most complex insurance products on the market.  It was a very gradual unfolding of a great amount of information, primarily on insurance.  It was not all explained at the beginning as Hank B[redacted] states but sequentially over several meetings.  The first details on the IRA exit strategy were presented on 12/02/16 (see e mail setting up the meeting in the attachment sent to Revdex.com).  Prior to this we suspected the income needs of Consultus were being placed before our own financial advice needs but when this complex business venture  was presented (purchasing stock in Consultus expansion) we began to write our complaint letter.  Everything was not explained from the beginning. 5.       The response states that all is explained in the client service letter.  What is in the letter and what Consultus told us are two different things.  After reading the documents and prior to signing the letter I asked Danny specifically about conflicts of interest.  I asked if the $3,000 fee covered the financial consulting or if Consultus made money on recommending and selling their products.   He assured us that he was a financial counselor and Consultus did not sell products.  Sometime in November I became suspicious why everything Consutlus recommended was primarily in insurance products (especially when I specified my preference towards diversification).  I asked if any of the products he recommended brought a profit to Consultus.  As we inquired we discovered all the products were Consultus money makers.  I questioned Danny about our previous pre-agreement signing conversation.  He said he did not recall the conversation and that in the future I needed to read the small print.  Everything was not explained in the client letter as the response states; there was a misleading discussion in addition to what was written in the letter.6.       The response states that Travis C[redacted] (attorney) sent us a letter.  I am overseas doing missionary work.  My son in Texas receives and reads my mail (extremely few pieces).  He absolutely has received no such correspondence (and would have definitely immediately forwarded it to me since it pertains to accusations and threats against me).  I receive very few e mails.  I did not receive an e mail correspondence from Travis C[redacted] either.  7.       The attorney letter attached by the responder falsely states that I made “threats to the company and its officers” and “The company  will not tolerate any attempts at intimidation, or extortion, or libelous slanderous or defamatory actions or statements”.  After stating the facts of non-performance that I outlined in my initial e mail I wrote, (12/12/16) “We ask you consider refunding a portion of the fee based on doing the right thing for a customer for which you have not performed as promised.  You obviously have the right to ignore this request.  Should you exercise that right, you will continue to have a very dissatisfied customer and will communicate that dissatisfaction through appropriate means available.”  On another occasion I wrote, (2/20/17) “I have not heard anything from you.  I thought I would give you the chance to do the right thing before I drew my final conclusions and acted upon them. I will file a copy of my complaint that I sent to you December 12th with St George Revdex.com, FINRA, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Utah Securities Department as necessary.  I would rather just receive a honorable reply from you before wasting more of your time and mine.”    I have not made any threats to the company or its officers nor engaged in any of the other aggressive acts or communications implied in the attorney’s letter.  I have a right to communicate to regulatory agencies facts about Consultus non-performance.  I was very professional and gracious about asking Consultus directly before contacting the above agencies.  They have never responded.In summary the Consultus response is unacceptable because it did not respond to the specifics sent in my complaint letter that I wrote and has been in the possession of the responder since 12/12/16.  It was not a serious response but appears to be a crude effort to intimidate me to drop the issue. The response also contains many errors of fact (typical of my past experience with the organization and further proof of the validity of my complaint).   Everything I have stated is factual, to the best of my knowledge; my wife is also a witness of these facts.  Most all that is stated can be documented by correspondence in my possession, many of the correspondences are attached and in the possession of the Revdex.com.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

This is a response from Consultus to the Revdex.com regarding the complaint of [redacted], Case #[redacted]. Apparently you sent email letters to Lawrence B[redacted], who is no longer with the company, and I only received your hard-copy letter on Thursday, July 22, 2017. This problem with...

[redacted] has been going on now for about 8 months.  We fulfilled every requirement of the engagement, but he kept asking for dozens of hours more work which was beyond the scope of the engagement. We explained it all to him at the beginning, but he would not accept our explanation. This is all clearly explained in the Client Engagement Letter which he executed. A copy of that letter is available upon request. After several threatening emails, we finally got our attorney involved, Travis Christiansen of St George, Utah.  He wrote [redacted] the attached letter. Hopefully the letter is self-explanatory. Apparently, after receiving the letter and seeing that he had no other options, he decided to file a long complaint with the Revdex.com in a vindictive attempt to disparage our reputation. The self-explanatory attorney's letter should answer any questions you may have about the complaint, and I am happy to answer any further questions.  This is my private, personal email address and would appreciate it if it were not distributed to other parties other than the Revdex.com. If you would, please confirm receipt of this email and that we have satisfactorily responded to this complaint. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Hank B[redacted]PresidentConsultus, Ltd.