AdvisorCheck Website

59 replies [Last post]
Vin Diesel's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-04-18

i just googled my name  and it came up under AdvisorCheck Website. The site does all of the finra stuff -and performs background check. fortunetly i dont have anything to hide, however this concerns me as the general public having this information so easily accesible. Its one thing for clients or prospects wanting to do a broker check, but why should everyone else?
 
Any thoughts suggestions...

CALI123's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-30

Was any of your info actually listed? My understanding is they only have access to the FINRA brokercheck database. They use a intimidation to get the rest of the information. A person will go on the site, sign up and request info. Advcheck will contact the broker with the idea of "if you don't submit your info then you must be hiding something". The person/client gets a email telling them that the broker refused to provide the info.I refuse to update my info and support this type of operation.

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

Yeah, this site sucks.  As Cali said, if you don't PAY and submit to allowing people to review your data, they basically tell the client that you refused to divulge information about your compliance record.  How does THAT sound??  It's basically extortion.  I would have no problem with it if the client had to pay for it, but making the broker pay (or else!) is ridiculous.

Vin Diesel's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-04-18

hmm...thats interesting. it just sucks that it comes up like # 3 under my name
so if anybody request info on the site we get notified? thats kinda cool -i guess..

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

Vin Diesel wrote:
hmm...thats interesting. it just sucks that it comes up like # 3 under my name
so if anybody request info on the site we get notified? thats kinda cool -i guess..
 
Yeah, real cool....this is how you get notified...."Mr. Nir Vus is requesting your compliance background.  If you would kindly pay us $150, we will release the information.  If you do not, we will let the client know that you are unwilling to release your compliance info."
 
Real Cool.

Wet_Blanket's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-13

B24 wrote:Vin Diesel wrote:
hmm...thats interesting. it just sucks that it comes up like # 3 under my name
so if anybody request info on the site we get notified? thats kinda cool -i guess..
 
Yeah, real cool....this is how you get notified...."Mr. Nir Vus is requesting your compliance background.  If you would kindly pay us $150, we will release the information.  If you do not, we will let the client know that you are unwilling to release your compliance info."
 
Real Cool.
 
 
Don't forget about the one time set up fee.

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

Yeah, that too.

MR.D's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-06-29

If you know who Mr. Nervus is, just call him and explain the situation and give him the finra brokercheck info, which should be enough. If not he probably is not a good prospect anyway. I certainly will not be paying for someone to see the info. If the prospect wants to see it that much, offer to authorize it if he wants it bad enough to pay the $150.00 fee. If you don't know Mr. Nervus, he probably is not a good prospect anyway. 

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

No, I agree.  I don't think it will be widely used.  I think it is just the principle of the service that irritates me.  It's f***ing extortion is what it is.

MR.D's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-06-29

B24, it is extortion, and another example of someone  trying to control people using their livelihood as the means to do it. I for one will not allow it.

deekay's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-05-15

If any prospect decided to not do business with me because I didn't sign up for that website, I'd tell them we're not going to work together.  Then I'd go out and find a prospect worth my time.
 
If you're worried about what one dumbsh1t thinks about you not posting confidential information about yourself, you don't have a big enough pipeline.

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

DK, I agree to an extent.  I don't so much have a problem with the prospect, so much as the service.  They can get all the information (it's public info) from FINRA's website.  So if I had the opportunity, I would link them directly to the site on FINRA's website.  The problem is, investors are getting the bejeebers scared out of them from the media, and they are doing what they think is right.  I don't blame an investor for wanting to do their due dilligence on an advisor - otherwise they have nobody else to blame when they get rooked by some rogue FA with a dirty U5.
But AdvisorCheck is preying on them, and using our career (and our money) as a pawn.
 
Personally, I am not worried about losing a prospect because of this service - it's the service that pisses me off.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

I believe it is the legal definition of extortion. I wonder if you get one of these emails and then forward it to the FBI, what would happen?

Probably nothing. But what if you had two friends at the FBI, one who works in White-Collar Crime?

AdvisorCheck's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-01

We appreciate your post and I wanted to address one of the 'misconceptions' of our site.  You are correct that Consumers are wanting full background checks on their advisors/reps and many are learning that the information out there (FINRA, state sec. dept, etc) is not always correct since there have been so many cases in which advisors/reps have failed to 'self report' items on their U4.   As you yourself are probably aware, your b/d has probably never done a background check on you since you were licensed because you are 'expected' to report violations.  The sad part for good advisors like you and consumers is the 'shady advisors' out there do not report violations or they depend on the fact that there are really 8 places for consumers to go in order to find out all the facts on an advisor/rep.  Even then, the question of if the rep/advisor is having any personal financial issues is undetermined (liens, judgments, bankruptcy, foreclosure).  Consumers can go to a site like www.ussearch.com and pay $59 for a background check that is run by 'name only' so the reports can be rather unclear if you have the right person (ie, no ss# or dob to verify the search).  They also only report civil and criminal along with some 'credit items.'  These checks are very inaccurate and frankly we believe Advisors/Reps would like a more controlled system in which their information is presented.  Reps/Advisors that are member 'rave' about how the ability to send consumers to our site It is for this reason that AdvisorCheck or www.advisorbackgroundcheck.com was created in order to give 'Peace of Mind' to consumers and return the industry to a higher level of disclosure and transparency.  As of August 25th, we began doing the background screenings FREE OF CHARGE to consumers and advisors (prior to that we asked the advisor to pay $50 and at the end the consumers name is released to them) knowing that the word of mouth would grow the company substantially and many advisors would end up becoming a member of AdvisorCheck (almost like the BBB) and support our cause to bring transparency and disclosure back to the industry.  Everyone agree's the current system is broken.  In doing so, they position themselves as an open book and frankly are two steps ahead of other advisors.  Have advisors still refused to the free background checks?  Absolutely.  Why?  Many have been because they do have things on their FINRA report but others I would guess are refusing because they do have other issues.  An isolated few may have 'privacy issues' but all you need to do is go to the site I mentioned above--run a report on yourself---and you will see what privacy you really have.  There is no such thing as privacy in today's technological world.  So what do we tell consumers if a Rep refuses a FREE background check?  The advisor has declined to submit to a 100% Free Background Check.........If that is extortion as someone noted in a post...the definition of the TRUTH has really changed.And yes, if you google me you will find I am in the industry, am a registered investment advisor, real estate investor and entrepreneur.  Why do I believe in this and serve as the "Spokesman" for AdvisorCheck? Well yes I do get paid and have stock options but I've seen first hand how consumers have no idea who they're dealing with and if they'd only do a little checking it could avoid potential issues.  How?  My parents lost over $100,000 to a rep. that was having financial difficulties and through my parents stupidity, wrote checks directly to him.  Would our system have caught it? Yes. Would the consumer (my parents) have listened and still used him?  Maybe but then if definately would be their fault....not the industry or the rep.Here was one of our recent releases picked up by forbes on the system.http://www.forbes.com/feeds/businesswire/2009/07/29/businesswire127267313.html

chief123's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-28

Ok a couple of things...
I think the theory behind the idea is great.. I think your application is terrible.

Your parents are morons. Why would you write a check to someone else that isn't a custodian?

Third people have no right to know what i do with my money, nor do they need to know that we have a hospital bill because my wife had a stroke and exhausted her insurance benefits(she didn't but I am sure it has happened). Nor do they need to know how much I paid for my house,cars, property taxes in order for me to be a good advisor...

Lastly.. you don't even handle people's money, you funnel it to that clown, Mark Matson at Abundance Technologies(by the way how are those DFA funds doing).. So why are you so concerned about protecting the industry when you don't actually do anything.

PS... your house is ugly... yeah sucks when people look into your private life doesn't..

By the way wouldn't try to insult too many people, you might get a call from someone(has happened before ask Windy)

CALI123's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-30

"FREE OF CHARGE to consumers and advisors (prior to that we asked the advisor to pay $50 and at the end the consumers name is released to them)"So how do you make money? Are you selling the emails out to people? And what advice does the prospect/client get if the advisor does not hand over his personal information.One last question - as an advisor, how can we be sure this information is not being used for identity theft reasons. No offense, but if I get an email/call from a website asking me to allow a stranger access to my credit report I'm not going to do it without know what safeguards are in place.

CALI123's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-30

"Your parents are morons. Why would you write a check to someone else that isn't a custodian?"Wait -I just caught this. Ryan, if you are also a RIA, and are looking out for people's best interest, why did you not help your OWN parents with their investments????I try to be nice to everyone on this board, but this seems to be one big scam to take advantage of advisors and play on the fear of investors.

etj4588's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-18

I cry foul on his parents losing $100K.  I think its a lie.  Prove it.

chief123's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-28

He will if you check his website, he has to

Sportsfreakbob's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-24

"FREE OF CHARGE to consumers and advisors (prior to that we asked the advisor to pay $50 and at the end the consumers name is released to them)"What happened that you suddenly decided not to ask for the $50? Did you suddenly get religion? Did you finally decide that you did not want to be accused of extortion? Or was it the complaint filed against you with the Missourri Attorney Generals office. See link - http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090816/REG/908149969&ht=advisorcheckIf you read the full article, you will see that Advisor check not only charged $50 to do the background check, but $139 for the Advisor to "subscribe"If you read the full article you will find that the following is the text of what Advisorcheck communicated to the inquiring client if the Advisor declined to pay:"“After contacting the adviser about the inquiry, he has unfortunately
chosen not to allow us to disclose any of his background information to
you. As you may be aware, to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
we must obtain a release from the adviser to disclose any data. We also
encourage the adviser to become a member of AdvisorCheck to show
his/her ‘Full Disclosure and Transparency' to consumers. The adviser
has chosen not to do either. Hence we suggest you exercise caution in
any dealings with this adviser.”If our friend Brian Blinkholder really believes that this is not extortion, then i have an Auction Rate Security i would like to sell him.I havent posted much lately, but this kind of sh*t really gets my goat. What a full of sh*t post, Brian.

Squash1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-19

As soon as I read the Mark Matson thing, I thought... HACK.... and then to read what they do and I don't even understand the point.

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

AdvisorCheck wrote:We appreciate your post and I wanted to address one of the 'misconceptions' of our site.  You are correct that Consumers are wanting full background checks on their advisors/reps and many are learning that the information out there (FINRA, state sec. dept, etc) is not always correct since there have been so many cases in which advisors/reps have failed to 'self report' items on their U4.   As you yourself are probably aware, your b/d has probably never done a background check on you since you were licensed because you are 'expected' to report violations.  The sad part for good advisors like you and consumers is the 'shady advisors' out there do not report violations or they depend on the fact that there are really 8 places for consumers to go in order to find out all the facts on an advisor/rep.  Even then, the question of if the rep/advisor is having any personal financial issues is undetermined (liens, judgments, bankruptcy, foreclosure).  Consumers can go to a site like www.ussearch.com and pay $59 for a background check that is run by 'name only' so the reports can be rather unclear if you have the right person (ie, no ss# or dob to verify the search).  They also only report civil and criminal along with some 'credit items.'  These checks are very inaccurate and frankly we believe Advisors/Reps would like a more controlled system in which their information is presented.  Reps/Advisors that are member 'rave' about how the ability to send consumers to our site It is for this reason that AdvisorCheck or www.advisorbackgroundcheck.com was created in order to give 'Peace of Mind' to consumers and return the industry to a higher level of disclosure and transparency.  As of August 25th, we began doing the background screenings FREE OF CHARGE to consumers and advisors (prior to that we asked the advisor to pay $50 and at the end the consumers name is released to them) knowing that the word of mouth would grow the company substantially and many advisors would end up becoming a member of AdvisorCheck (almost like the BBB) and support our cause to bring transparency and disclosure back to the industry.  Everyone agree's the current system is broken.  In doing so, they position themselves as an open book and frankly are two steps ahead of other advisors.  Have advisors still refused to the free background checks?  Absolutely.  Why?  Many have been because they do have things on their FINRA report but others I would guess are refusing because they do have other issues.  An isolated few may have 'privacy issues' but all you need to do is go to the site I mentioned above--run a report on yourself---and you will see what privacy you really have.  There is no such thing as privacy in today's technological world.  So what do we tell consumers if a Rep refuses a FREE background check?  The advisor has declined to submit to a 100% Free Background Check.........If that is extortion as someone noted in a post...the definition of the TRUTH has really changed.And yes, if you google me you will find I am in the industry, am a registered investment advisor, real estate investor and entrepreneur.  Why do I believe in this and serve as the "Spokesman" for AdvisorCheck? Well yes I do get paid and have stock options but I've seen first hand how consumers have no idea who they're dealing with and if they'd only do a little checking it could avoid potential issues.  How?  My parents lost over $100,000 to a rep. that was having financial difficulties and through my parents stupidity, wrote checks directly to him.  Would our system have caught it? Yes. Would the consumer (my parents) have listened and still used him?  Maybe but then if definately would be their fault....not the industry or the rep.Here was one of our recent releases picked up by forbes on the system.http://www.forbes.com/feeds/businesswire/2009/07/29/businesswire127267313.html

Who is wrong, you or your website?  You are saying that the background check is free for the advisor.  Your website says it is $189/year.  The only thing that is free is to be listed.   A clarification would be appreciated.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Who cares who is wrong? This is a shameless attempt to make money. You want to change the industry, hire people who are ethical and ENFORCE it.

You can't change something over night. You have to change it through reputation. What happens when a "shady advisor" has managed to avoid all of your other things.

What percentage of rapes aren't reported? It's a good bet that one of the advisors who has a clean background is a rapist.

What percentage of murderers aren't caught? What percentage of thieves?

Your system is flawed for any number of reasons, but most importantly because it FORCES the advisors' to do something to insure his/her livelihood. And that is completely wrong.

Go F**K yourself Brian.

CALI123's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-30

"Or was it the complaint filed against you with the Missourri Attorney Generals office. See link - http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090816/REG/908149969&ht=advisorcheck"I just emailed my states AG and the state's securities division. I told them this is a form of extortion to get us to revel private information. My state is big on privacy laws. I suggest everyone do the same. We can shut this down fairly quickly.Did anyone check out Brian's website bio. He had a child pass away on him. While, I don't know how I would manage if one of my kids dies, I would NEVER use it on my website as a way to get clients to feel sorry for me. That is a very private matter. This guy is scum!!(wow, this guy brings the worst of me out)

KensLoveChild's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-11


Why do I believe in this and serve as the "Spokesman" for AdvisorCheck?
Well yes I do get paid and have stock options but I've seen first hand
how consumers have no idea who they're dealing with and if they'd only
do a little checking it could avoid potential issues.  How?  My parents
lost over $100,000 to a rep. (Brian) that was having financial difficulties and
through my parents stupidity, wrote checks directly to him (Brian).  Would our
system have caught it? Yes(because it was Brian). Would the consumer (my parents) have
listened and still used him?(Yes, because it was Brian)  Maybe but then if definately would be
their fault(because it was Brian)....not the industry or the rep."

AdvisorCheck's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-01

Thank you to all who have posted and expressed valid concerns. To the others, let me see the constructive criticism and feedback we've received from this post thus far:
1. Go F**K yourself
2. Bryan stole his parents money
3. Your house is ugly
4. Bryan is a scum bag
5. My parents are morons.
6. Mark matson is a scum bag
7. Dimensional Fund Advisors stink
8. I don't want people seeing my payments due, loans etc.
9. Bryan talks about his son that died so he must certainly be a scum bag.

So, as we continue on this journey to bring "Full Disclosure and Total Transparency' to the market place some advisors have asked about pricing which is valid. Our 100% Free, Complete Background Checks are no charge to consumer and advisors. This applies for the 1st inquiry on an advisor. After using our service for the full disclosure and transparency, we would like to see the rep/advisor join our membership and that charge is $189 a year. We do co-op marketing on the radio with an advisor and various other things that help both entities get the word out about the advisor/reps transparency and the service we provide.

To the individual that noted or asked about 'personal information,' we DO NOT release anything of a personal nature. We ONLY report on criminal, civil, judgments, liens, bankruptcies and foreclosures--JUST LIKE A REP IS SUPPOSED TO DO WITH FINRA. So, there is really no reason to be upset with our service. Instead it should be embraced as something that will help you earn the trust consumers are looking for. The nice part is that by compiling the data at one source we can help the consumer and advisor/rep.

Finally, we have actually sent information to every state AG and Securities Dept. to see about working jointly with them to give consumers better assistance in checking on the backgrounds of reps/advisors. The complaint that was filed supposedly has never been addressed to us by the state so we are unaware of such a complaint. It can be noted that we have changed some of our processes after 'constructive suggestions' by consumers and advisors about our program. In many cases the feedback helped us better determine what worked and what did not. One item that we scrapped was a 'feedback system' such as this because we thought it might allow people to post 'unfavorable' comments on advisors/reps without a way to validate them. Due to advisor concerns we eliminated it.   We also added an option due to consumer feedback where the inquirer could pay for the report and remain anonymous (our regular process is after the checks are completed the advisor/rep gets the contact information for the consumer) Finally, we realize 'privacy' can always be an issue and our checks only require the last four of a social security number and these are 'hidden' in our system so no once can see them. We also 'educate' advisors/reps (due to advisor feedback) on how to put a 'fraud alert' on your credit reports to prevent unauthorized usage.

Again, thank you to all who actually have something constructive to say and we aim to answer each concern and improve our system to aid advisors/reps and consumers. Unlike others who remain 'hidden' so no one knows who they are, my name and contact information is shown directly below and feel free to contact me with suggestions.

bryanb@advisorbackgroundcheck.com

deekay's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-05-15

Why do 'you' insist on 'using' quote marks in 'every' fifth word? 

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

I have a judgment for $450 on my background because I am a horrible golfer and got sued by a guy who lives on a golf course b/c I hit his car.

I got it reversed on appeal, but it still shows up. That doesn't show up on a FINRA Brokercheck or any other kind of search and it shouldn't.

Tell me how that makes me a "crooked" advisor. I don't want someone to see that, because it is private and personal. Why should anybody but FINRA know about that?

Who's next? What about a teacher that can't manage his or her money and ends up with a bankruptcy on their record? Do parents need to know that?

You are what is wrong with this country. Your freedoms stop where my nose begins. As long as I disclose the information to my regulator, why do you need to be in my business? The answer: So you can make money off of me.

I have posted my ADV on my website and EVERY client gets a copy of it. "Full Disclosure and Transparency"? Give me a break.

3rdyrp2's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-13

Madoff had a clean record before his 1st heist.  Would Brokercheck have stopped him?  Everyone's a good guy until the 1st time they are caught screwing someone.  There's no system that will prevent that from happening.  If you take away someones guns, they'll kill you with grenades.  You take away their grenades, they'll kill you with bombs.  If someone wants to launder a clients money or have clients write personal checks to them, they are going to find a way to do it. 

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

If you are trying to clean things up, why not just set up the website as a non-profit, and direct them to the FINRA site where they can trace your CRD for no charge?  Same info, right?  Why does someone have to pay for that?  It's still extortion. You're simply finding a way to extort money out of advisors, plain and simple. 

CALI123's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-30

I am still waiting for an answer to this:Bryan, maybe I wasn’t clear in my previous post, if you or your staff
are leading the consumer to make any conclusion by making disparaging
remarks about a SEC Advisor, because they did not purchase your
service, then you are rendering an opinion. To attempt to hide behind
“We are just doing background checks” is very disingenuous, and borders
on misrepresentation. Again, if you are truly being only a
facilitator you must monitor your conduct in such a manner to leave the
consumer with a neutral opinion by making full and fair disclosure,
anything less most likley places you under SEC regulations. Call them,
provide them with copies of your previous correspondence, and relay to
them your previous remarks and how you relate information to consumers,
then they will let you know if you are exempt.I checked with
our compliance department and they confirmed that they prohibit using
any outside referral service that is not SEC registered, so if you are
connecting a potential client with a SEC Registered Adviser that is
considered a referral. As a matter of policy the Adviser is
also required to disclose they pay a referral fee and to whom in their
Part II ADV filed with the SEC. You may want to call Jack
Waymire [jack@paladinregistry.com] as his firm (Paladin Registry) has
gone through this process and accepted the required fiduciary liability
and registered with the SEC. We have used their service for
over two years and we pay a $40.00 per month fee to be listed, in
addition to supplying all the requested filing information each year
and file amending updates as necessary, and we also have to pay a
referral fee ($0-$40) for each client referred to us depending on the
source and how much they charge Paladin, we normally receive 2-4
referrals per month. Jack stated they had recently completed their SEC
audit and passed review with some minor changes suggested by the
auditors. For more information you can review their website at www.paladinregistry.com So
I'm wondering why If you want to build this background check/referral
service and with most firms compliance blessing, why not accept
fiduciary standards of care and register with the SEC???

deekay's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-05-15

B24 wrote:If you are trying to clean things up, why not just set up the website as a non-profit, and direct them to the FINRA site where they can trace your CRD for no charge?  Same info, right?  Why does someone have to pay for that?  It's still extortion. You're simply finding a way to extort money out of advisors, plain and simple. 
 
QFT.

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

QFT?

Mike Damone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-01

B24 wrote:QFT?
 
Quoted For Truth

AdvisorCheck's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-01

Great post and thanks for the information. I know the founders of the company and their securities attorney reviewed the paladin case and in their consultations the company is not involved in rendering judgment (just providing the facts) on anyone so the need for registering was not appropriate....The company only provides the background check and information.  Due to this and other good feedback, as I noted in the first post...... our response to consumers if an advisor/rep fails to submit to a 100% free background check is that we let the consumer know that they declined to submit to a 100% Free Background Check.  We do encourage consumers to go to the FINRA site, state securities, insurance and etc but we do explain their limitations.  We also offer the Forbes, June 8th article 'DIY SLEUTHING'  as additional resources on checking out your advisor.   http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0608/042-fraud-madoff-kroll-checking-out-financial-advisor.htmlWhy don't we just compile the public information?  #1 we still fall under FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act Standards) so we still need an advisor/reps authorizatin to compile even that data to protect against 'bad information.' As a note, any negative items are FIRST reported to the advisor/rep for clarification or for them to 'dispute' to any of the agencies.  #2, the information is really not accurate because of the 'self reporting.'   Understand that the current system as I noted and most of you know is 'self reporting' so once you are licensed the only things that are added are incidents that you report.  Again, this problem (non reporting) is fairly rampant-- that is what our system hopes to eliminate.For the advisors out there that do have minor issues, understand it is a great opportunity for you to POST A RESPONSE on your profile and clarify any issues. For instance, one advisor(that had a background request processed) was suspended for not getting a piece of advertising approved and the FINRA language makes him out to be chainsaw murderer.  We reported it in the manner in which it was and his compliance office ok'd his responses. We noted that he failed to have a piece of advertising approved prior to publication and was disciplined by having to serve a 30 day suspension.  In doing so, he fully complied with all conditions.  By doing this, we made it easier for the consumer to understand what happened instead of calling FINRA to find 'he was suspended for 30 days due to a violation.'  To me, that is apalling and inaccurate and that is what we try to bring to consumers and advisors---the truth in an easy to understand manner.  In fact, this advisor loved it because he won the client with his transparency and our easy to understand explanation was much better that the FINRA jargon that would scare off most investors.As a note because this was emailed to me, our checks on the criminal and civil do go back 7 years and the regulatory items go back 10 years. 

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

It's extortion.  There's no way around it.  Unless it's public information that doesn't need my approval to be released, then it's extortion.  But by the very act of "requesting" my approval to release information to a 3rd party in order to secure business from them (no potential client will give business to an FA that refuses the release), it is, IN FACT, extortion.  You can twist it any freakin way you want.  Money magazine and all the other financial porn mags can say all they want, but none of them will view it from the advisor's perspective.  FINRA has everything you need from me.  I don't need to "exlain" on your stupid form about anything that FINRA is not entitled to.  You're not my mortgage lender.  Don't be diggin in my backyard.

Sportsfreakbob's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-24

<>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

BBBrian,PlPplease understand you are not dealing with idiots here. We advisors and RR's are pretty sharp people by our nature, so dont think you are going to convince us that you are trying to make our industry better. Please see below, particularly items 2 and three.YoYou are clearly not intending to help us, or our industry. Just call a spade a spade, will you?11.       1, "After using our service for the full
disclosure and transparency, we would like to see the rep/advisor join our
membership and that charge is $189 a year."

Should read, “after using our service for the full
disclosure and transparency, we tell the FA that if he doesn’t join our
membership and pay us $189 a year we will make judgemental and disparaging
remarks to his prospect about him.”

I suppose you decided that rather than extorting the FA
without giving him a chance to use your service first, if you gave him a one
time trial, and then tried to get him to pay you under threat of disparaging
him to the public, makes you a good guy.

2.

2.       Here
is a quote from the article published in Investment News:

“In a copy of one e-mail intended
for a consumer, which was provided to InvestmentNews by an adviser,
AdvisorCheck wrote: “After contacting the adviser about the inquiry, he has
unfortunately chosen not to allow us to disclose any of his background
information to you. As you may be aware, to comply with the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, we must obtain a release from the adviser to disclose any data.
We also encourage the adviser to become a member of AdvisorCheck to show
his/her ‘Full Disclosure and Transparency' to consumers. The adviser has chosen
not to do either. Hence we suggest you exercise caution in any dealings with
this adviser.”

Can you deny or confirm  that such an email was ever sent by you?  If you are denying it, would you be interested
in to Davis Janowski, the reporter that wrote the article, that he is
writing an untruth? Because in his article he states that his publication has a
copy of the email.

3.  
3. “The
complaint that was filed supposedly has never been addressed to us by the state
so we are unaware of such a complaint”

 

The complaint was not “supposedly” filed, it was
actually filed. And since you are unaware of such a complaint, see below, which
was copied and pasted from the website of the Attorney General of the State of
Missouri.

 

Company name, location and complaints filed

ADVISORCHECK INC.
18 PR
PO BOX 805
ALIEF TX

Complaints
found: 1
Complaints resolved successfully: 0

NOTE: "Complaints resolved successfully" means the consumer
was offered something of value, such as a refund, services performed, a product
or credit toward future purchases.

In the remaining complaints, negotiations are continuing or the business and
the consumer were unable to reach agreement.
 
      Complaint Category

Date
Filed

       Online Services

Jul 22, 2009

LA Broker's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-12-03

This is a great thread, everyone really let this guy have it.  The more I read the more I realize this guy is a low level salesman/rep for the company who has no control over what they do.  If he was important he would not spend his day on this site defending the company will contradicting information.  As most of these "bright ideas" do they will fade away and nobody will remember them.  If a prospect looks you up, they will look up the next guy and realize nobody registers with them.  I can not imagine they have had success getting membership especially since someone pointed out most broker dealers would not approve. 

Sportsfreakbob's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-24

But i am sure we will hear tomorrow, from Brian, how sooo many advisors have signed up.And how sooo many investors have been saved by their very civic minded serviceI dont have time to go on this website during the day. Maybe i should get a internet PR job

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

(From the Advisorcheck website)
A Word From the President

Mike Dunlap's passion for investing led him on a path of working for Principal Financial Group for a number of years, until he had an 'awakening' moment and realized there were many people who were utterly lacking the knowledge and guidance necessary to achieve a successful retirement. In early 2000, Mike left Principal Financial and began The Senior Resource Center-St. Louis, which focused on helping retirees and individuals in need of advanced wealth transfer techniques not found in the normal planning process. Mike later co-partnered a new firm, Binkholder, Dunlap & Solomon
 
(From Bryan Binkholders Website)
Bryan C. Binkholder is a Registered Investment Advisor and licensed under the State of Missouri Securities Department. The Financial Coach acts as a Registered Investment Advisor and offers discretionary investment services to a limited number of clients. The Financial Coach/Bryan C. Binkholder primarily acts as a Solicitor for Abundant Technologies Inc, a Federally Registered Investment Advisory Firm located in Cincinnati Ohio with over $2.8 Billion Dollars under management when dealing with investment planning and management. Abundant Technologies, Inc adheres strictly to the Modern Portfolio Theory and Efficient Frontier models utilizing DFA Structured Funds and Structured Investment Techniques. In regard to solicitation, this communication is strictly intended for individuals residing in the state of Missouri. All insurance related services and products are handled by Binkholder, Dunlap & Solomon, Inc (Furthermore known as “BDS”) a duly licensed entity in Missouri and holding a valid insurance agency license. Bryan C. Binkholder individually owns 50% ownership in BDS.
 
Yet another lie from Mr. Binkholder....so one of the partners in the firm that you are a 50% shareholder in is also the President of AdvisorCheck?  Interesting.  So much for the "paid spokesman" angle.

CALI123's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-30

Well, his business model just went down the tube. I have never ran into a rep or advisor who doesn't search these boards. If reps don't participate, then the website will go under.Good way to fu$k yourself Brian. you just ruined your little company, will have every rep in your area bad mouth you, and will have numerous regulatory inquires since a good number of people on this board have already emailed their local regulator.You are a pretty bad spokesperson. I can think of a few dozen ways this could have been handled better. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

CALI123's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-30

Maybe we can put a fund together and have Bill Singer go after this guy.

Squash1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-19

This is why these people shouldn't come on here. A lot of us who run a clean business and have some free time can shred a guy like this in 24 hours.
 
Brian, in all honesty we don't hate your theory(though I am sick of people inventing new ways to make everything public), the problem is it doesn't do anything other than turn a profit for your firm.

etj4588's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-18

LA Broker wrote:The more I read the more I realize this guy is a low level salesman/rep for the company who has no control over what they do.  If he was important he would not spend his day on this site defending the company will contradicting information.   Not exactly.  If you check the whois of his site, his name appears on the registrant information for the domain.  So my guess is that Brian is a bit more involved than just being a spokesman.Still waiting for the proof of how his parents got ripped for $100K...

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

Exactly.  He owns the damn thing.  And since he's the only "advisor" (the others are insurance guys), he is the "face" of the company.  It all plays into his little scheme.  Him and his cohorts were sitting around drinking one night, and came up with this ridiculous scheme to extort money out of all the good brokers out there, on the heels of all the "bad broker" news in the headlines.  Not a bad concept, just really poor execution.  If clients want protection that bad, let THEM pay for it. 
I notice our friend hasn't been back to defend himself.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

I have written a letter that I am taking to several of the local indy's to endorse. We are sending copies to the State AG, State Securities Board, and the SEC. Probably FINRA too.

I am willing to through some money into the pot as well for people contemplating legal action.

Things like this should be stopped. I appreciate the OP's bringing this to people's attention.

CALI123's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-30

Thanks Bill!In the InvestmentNews article it shows an email that was sent out to a prospect after the advisor did not submit information. (which AdvisorCheck did not deny). Would an email like this be considered defamation?http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090816/REG/908149969&ht=advisorcheckIn a copy of one e-mail intended for a consumer, which was provided to
InvestmentNews by an adviser, AdvisorCheck wrote: “After contacting the
adviser about the inquiry, he has unfortunately chosen not to allow us
to disclose any of his background information to you. As you may be
aware, to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, we must obtain a
release from the adviser to disclose any data. We also encourage the
adviser to become a member of AdvisorCheck to show his/her ‘Full
Disclosure and Transparency' to consumers. The adviser has chosen not
to do either. Hence we suggest you exercise caution in any dealings
with this adviser.”

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

I was going to comment after your previous post ("Man, Bill has gone soft!"), but then I assumed that you held back for these reasons.  Good luck with the case.  We're all rooting for you!

UNDERMINDED's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

Vin Diesel wrote:i just googled my name  and it came up under AdvisorCheck Website. The site does all of the finra stuff -and performs background check. fortunetly i dont have anything to hide, however this concerns me as the general public having this information so easily accesible. Its one thing for clients or prospects wanting to do a broker check, but why should everyone else?
 
Any thoughts suggestions...
 
Funny... when I googled your name, all that came up was Fast and Furious quotes.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

UNDERMINDED wrote: Vin Diesel wrote:i just googled my name  and it came up under AdvisorCheck Website. The site does all of the finra stuff -and performs background check. fortunetly i dont have anything to hide, however this concerns me as the general public having this information so easily accesible. Its one thing for clients or prospects wanting to do a broker check, but why should everyone else?
 
Any thoughts suggestions...
 
Funny... when I googled your name, all that came up was Fast and Furious quotes.

"It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile... Winning's winning."

rrkreech's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-10

Google has been a very helpful search engine and it can't also lie sometimes as it will give results and resources openly

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×