LPL Financial and its long-tenured advisor, Roger Barnett of Brentwood, Tennessee, have come under scrutiny following a recent investor complaint, highlighting the risks of unsuitable investment advice in the world of real estate investment trusts (REITs). With nearly four decades in the securities industry, Roger Barnett (CRD# 1209301) had maintained a clean record until August 2025, when an investor filed a complaint concerning non-traded REIT recommendations. The pending allegation, which seeks up to $125,000 in damages (total claimed impact: $250,000), centers on whether advice provided by this experienced broker truly prioritized the investor’s best interests.
Understanding the Complaint: What Are the Allegations Against Roger Barnett?
Filed in August 2025, the complaint alleges that Roger Barnett, while acting as a representative of The ON Equity Sales Company, recommended an unsuitable investment in a real estate investment trust. The investor claims to have suffered financial harm due to advice that allegedly did not fit their financial needs or risk tolerance. Roger Barnett has denied all allegations, and the claim remains pending, but the significant monetary claim signals how impactful such decisions can be.
REITs, or real estate investment trusts, are designed to give investors access to income-producing real estate without the need for direct property ownership. There are two primary types:
- Publicly traded REITs – Bought and sold on major stock exchanges, these vehicles offer liquidity and transparency. Investors can access their funds relatively easily and have a clearer sense of pricing.
- Non-traded REITs – These are not listed on public markets. They often promise higher yields but require capital to be locked up for a set period. Upfront fees can exceed 10%, and early redemption is either difficult or impossible. Their value may also be hard to determine due to infrequent disclosures.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and organizations such as Investopedia note that non-traded REITs can be particularly risky for certain types of investors, especially those who may need access to liquid funds or have a lower risk tolerance. The products also carry the potential for high commissions for advisors, increasing the potential for conflicts of interest.
Investment Suitability: Responsibilities Under FINRA Rule 2111
The core of the complaint against Roger Barnett is “unsuitability” — a term that means an investment was not appropriate for the customer’s financial situation. Under FINRA Rule 2111, brokers must:
- Understand the investment’s characteristics, risks, and costs (reasonable-basis suitability).
- Match recommendations to the specific needs and profile of the client (customer-specific suitability).
- Avoid recommending excessive or frequent purchases that might undermine the client’s financial stability (quantitative suitability).
To simplify: a solid investment product may function well for one investor, but be wholly inappropriate for another, depending on age, liquidity needs, and risk appetite. For example, non-traded REITs may suit high net worth investors with stable finances and a long time horizon, but are typically not advised for investors who may need quick access to their money or wish to avoid significant risk of loss. The intent is always to avoid scenarios where an investor ends up with a product that is profitable for the broker but potentially harmful for the client’s portfolio.
According to Forbes, billions of dollars in investor funds are lost annually as a result of unsuitable or misleading financial advice, often involving complex or illiquid products such as non-traded REITs. Estimates from the SEC indicate that roughly 7% of financial advisors have a disclosure event—including a complaint or regulatory matter—on their record, underscoring the need for vigilance by both investors and regulators.
A Closer Look at Roger Barnett’s Credentials and Career History
Roger Barnett is an industry veteran with 38 years of experience, according to FINRA. As of November 2025, he is registered with LPL Financial, a major financial services firm, and is licensed to offer investment advice in twelve states: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas. His previously held positions include posts at:
- Hornor Townsend & Kent
- The ON Equity Sales Company
- Capital Analysts
- Thomson McKinnon Securities
- Drexel Burnham Lambert
While firms like Drexel Burnham Lambert are historically linked with high-profile financial scandals (see Wikipedia), there is no evidence or allegation that Roger Barnett was implicated in any wrongdoing at those institutions.
Regarding regulatory qualifications, Roger Barnett has successfully passed important securities exams, including:
| Securities Industry Essentials (SIE) | Series 65 – Uniform Investment Adviser Law |
| Series 63 – Uniform Securities Agent State Law | Series 7 – General Securities Representative |
| Series 5 – Interest Rate Options | Series 24 – General Securities Principal |
Until the current pending complaint, his BrokerCheck report was free of any disclosure events—a noteworthy achievement in such a lengthy career.
Red Flags: The Broader Problem of Unsuitable Advice
While one complaint does not define a career, it does serve as a reminder of persistent exposure to bad financial advice. According to the SEC and leading financial authors, unsuitable investment recommendations are a common thread in investment fraud cases. For example:
- The North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) ranks unsuitable advice among the most frequent investor complaints, especially involving products with high commissions or opaque risks, such as non-traded REITs and private placements.
- Research shows that elderly and inexperienced investors are more vulnerable to unsuitable product recommendations.
- A study by the SEC found that 7% of all registered advisors have faced at least one disclosure event, but those with clean records—like Roger Barnett until 2025—are still not immune to the pressures of complex product sales.
Lessons from past cases—many discussed on resources like FinancialAdvisorComplaints.com—underscore the importance for investors to perform due diligence before following potentially risky advice.
Investor Protections and Smart Steps Forward
The investor complaint against Roger Barnett remains pending. If the claim succeeds at arbitration, both he and his firm could be required to pay not only damages, but also interest and legal fees. Regardless of the outcome, this event will be a permanent feature of his BrokerCheck report, visible to all current and future clients.
For investors, here are practical steps to help avoid bad outcomes:
- Check your advisor’s credentials on BrokerCheck and investigate their disciplinary history before investing.
- Ask clear questions about liquidity, risk, fees, and the rationale behind any investment product—especially if it seems complex or unfamiliar.
- If an advisor cannot explain a recommendation in plain language, consider seeking a second opinion or switching advisors.
- Utilize trusted sources such as Investopedia and major financial publications for unbiased education about investment products
Correction or Updated Info Needed? The information in this article includes the publisher's opinion and is based on publicly available materials believed to be accurate at the time of publication.
We welcome updates. If you have personal knowledge of additional facts or details related to any issues or individuals, and you believe that information would enhance the accuracy of the article, don't hesitate to get in touch with us https://financialadvisorcomplaints.com/article-correction-update/ and provide you name, address, email, and telephone contact for follow-up reporting, along with the back-up for any updates. The publisher strives to provide the most up-to-date and most accurate report regarding all issues and events, and welcomes input from any individuals with personal knowledge.
DISCLAIMER: The information herein is derived from public sources and is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Legal matters may have subsequent developments, and market values may fluctuate. While we strive for accuracy, we make no representations about the completeness or reliability of this information. Readers should independently verify all content and seek professional advice as needed.
