Larry W. Fouche Attorney at Law, LLC

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 9, 2016/01/07) */

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2016/04/15) */
Response to Revdex.com Complaint XXXXXX
*** Financial, Inc*** Financial" hereby objects to complaint XXXXXX
Customer contacted the Lawing Financial office in Springfield, Missouri to make an additional investment into his direct-held
mutual fund accountMrLawing helped the customer with his request and received the customer's check on Thursday, February 25, Mr*** and *** Financial subsequently forwarded the customer's check to the mutual fund sponsor in a prompt and timely manner
Despite his having purchased and sold investments for more than years, it appears that the customer continues to misunderstand the process associated with purchasing mutual fundsContrary to the customer's expectations, neither the customer's mutual fund purchase order itself nor a given "price" could have been "locked in" by either Mr*** or *** FinancialThis is because on a given day both the Net Asset Value (NAV) and the Public Offering Price (POP) for a mutual fund are determined by the mutual fund sponsor after the market closesFurthermore, Mr*** and *** Financial forwarded the customer's check to the mutual fund sponsor in a prompt and timely mannerThe mutual fund sponsor invested the customer's check on Monday, February 29, and thus determined both the Public Offering Price (POP) that applied to the customer's purchase and consequently the number of shares acquiredThe aforementioned transaction process was reiterated by Mr*** after the customer inquired some days later about the number of shares purchased
Mr*** denies ever promising the customer that a certain number of shares would result from the ultimate purchaseMrLawing also denies ever instructing the customer to make his check out to the mutual fund sponsor for $20,
*** Financial and Mr*** maintain the customer's complaint is unwarranted and does not require a correction
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2016/04/25) */
The company's response is not satisfactoryHis quote: "It appears that customer mis-understands the process associated with purchasing mutual funds." Apparently he being from the big city considers me a hillbillyI am well aware of the (NAV) AND (POP) price difference of mutual funds
At the present time I have investments in different mutual fundsWhen each was purchased I was quoted a price and when I ok'd the purchase, at that second a button was punched and the price was locked in
As stated in my original complaint I said I wanted to purchase 10,sharesMr *** looked at his cell phone, said the price was $and to make my check for $20, My wife was a witness to this conversation(Mr *** has a short memory.) When making a sale the agent should quote a (POP) priceTo do otherwise would be poor businessI expect Lawing Financial to fulfill my purchase and add my shares that was shorted
Final Business Response /* (4000, 17, 2016/05/06) */
We are sorry that the customer believes our response was unsatisfactoryIn outlining the mutual fund purchase price with reference to NAV and POP, *** Financial did not mean to suggest that it considers the customer to be a "hillbilly"Mr*** has never called the customer such a thing or treated him that way
The customer's rebuttal to our response states that he understands the terms "NAV" and "POP"The POP which the customer believes should be "locked in" could not be "locked in" by Mr*** because the POP would be determined by the mutual fund sponsor after the market closesWhile Mr*** provided price information during the conversation with the customer, he did not intend to indicate that it was a "locked in price", nor could he do soThe customer states for each of his other purchases of mutual funds (purchases that were not with Mr*** that a button was punched and the price was locked inThat is not the process as understood or practiced by Lawing Financial as mutual funds inherently have price uncertaintyThus, no buttons could or would have been pushed
The customer's check was received and transmitted promptly to the mutual fund sponsorThe mutual fund sponsor, not Mr*** invested the customer's check and thus determined both the price that applied to the customer's purchase and consequently the number of shares acquiredWe cannot honor the customer's request that shares be added to his account
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 23, 2016/05/20) */
This is in reply to better of May 9th,
The company new offer makes no changeUntil I received the shares that were ordered and paid for, as previously explainedNo offer is satisfactoryIn todays world the check could have been (and should have been) cashed electronically and transmitted to the mutual fund sponsor within minutes of receiving check

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2016/01/07) */