Ausdal Financial Partners, Inc. is the current home of Mark Samuel Epps, a registered representative whose advisory record has recently come under investor scrutiny. Mark Epps (CRD #2185338) has worked at several financial firms over his career and is the subject of multiple customer complaint disclosures. Understanding what these complaints mean and the broader context for financial advisory misconduct is essential for anyone relying on professional investment guidance.
Allegations Against Mark Epps: Concentration and Suitability Concerns
Every investor expects their financial advisor to provide sound, personalized advice. Both ethical standards and regulatory rules, such as those established by FINRA and the SEC, require that investment recommendations are in the client’s best interest. Unfortunately, when these standards aren’t met, the financial and emotional repercussions for individual investors can be severe.
According to FINRA BrokerCheck (source), as of July 21, 2026, Mark Samuel Epps has three customer dispute disclosures. Here are the key details:
| Date | Nature of Complaint | Product Involved | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 1, 2026 | Alleged overconcentration in fixed annuities | $1 million in indexed annuities (14-year surrender period) | Closed with no action (April 20, 2026) |
| December 17, 2021 | Alleged FINRA rule violations, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty | Alternative investments | Settled in FINRA arbitration docket 21-02611 for $85,000; Mark Epps did not contribute |
| Not Specified | Undisclosed in public record | Not Specified | Details limited |
The most recent complaint, filed in April 2026, alleged that Mark Epps placed an excessive portion of a customer’s assets—about $1 million—into indexed annuities carrying a 14-year surrender charge. For many investors, especially those nearing retirement or requiring liquidity, long surrender periods can create significant financial risk. Although the matter was closed with no action, the size and substance of the complaint warrant careful consideration. The earlier complaint from December 2021 centered on alternative investments, and settled in arbitration for $85,000 (with the payment reportedly not made by Mark Epps directly).
Mark Epps Professional Background and Regulatory Record
To understand the issues raised in these disputes, it helps to review Mark Epps’s professional background:
- Current Registration: Ausdal Financial Partners, Inc.
- Previous Firms: Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments; Michigan Securities, Inc.
- Exams Passed: Securities Industry Essentials (SIE), Series 7, Series 63, Series 99TO
- Disputes: Three customer disputes reported, with the latest in April 2026
- Regulatory Actions: No FINRA suspensions or bars, no SEC cease-and-desist orders, no state regulator sanctions
- Civil & Financial Record: No reported lawsuits, bankruptcies, liens, or judgments
According to industry research published by Investopedia, about 7% of financial advisors have faced some form of misconduct disclosure, but these advisors frequently control an outsized portion of client assets. Multiple disclosures do not automatically signify wrongdoing, but they are meaningful warning signs that deserve investor scrutiny.
How Investment Misconduct and Poor Recommendations Harm Investors
Misconduct in the financial advisory industry—ranging from unsuitable advice to outright fraud—can devastate investors. According to the SEC, investment fraud costs Americans billions each year. While most financial advisors act ethically, there are troubling cases of:
- Overconcentration: Putting too much money into one type of product or sector exposes clients to excessive risk. In Mark Epps’s case, a 14-year annuity lockup could severely limit a retiree’s flexibility during critical years.
- Lack of Suitability: Recommending complex or illiquid products to clients who may need easier access to their funds can be inconsistent with established suitability standards.
- Negligence or Conflicts of Interest: Poor advice can result from lack of due diligence, or because an advisor is motivated by commissions or firm incentives (for more on this, see FINRA’s investor education: FINRA Investors).
For context, fixed indexed annuities with lengthy surrender periods, as in the complaint against Mark Epps, can come with steep penalties for early withdrawals, and may not suit those needing liquidity or facing health or family emergencies. Settlements in arbitration, while not admissions of liability, suggest a disputed situation was viewed as substantial by both sides.
Understanding the Rules: Suitability, Commercial Honor, and Regulation Best Interest
Financial advisors are governed by multiple rules designed to protect investors from unsuitable or conflicted advice:
- FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability):
- Advisors must ensure that any recommended investment matches the client’s profile—considering age, risk tolerance, objectives, and liquidity needs. For example, lengthy surrender periods might not be right for someone close to retirement.
- FINRA Rule 2010 (Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade):
- Brokers must act with integrity and uphold high standards of commercial honor, including avoiding negligence and any breach of fiduciary duties.
- Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI):
- Since June 30, 2020, Reg BI has required brokers to put a retail client’s best interest first. Advisors must clearly disclose conflicts, consider alternative investments, and avoid sales strategies that benefit the broker over the client.
These safeguards are intended to keep investor protection at the core of every customer relationship. Mark Epps’s history, as reflected on BrokerCheck, highlights why these standards matter so much to investors—especially regarding liquidity, risk tolerance, and diversification.
Lessons for Investors: How to Vet Your Advisor
What do the allegations against Mark Samuel Epps teach the average investor?
- Beware Overconcentration: Spreading assets across different products, not locking up funds for extended periods, and monitoring for sales that seem repetitive or commission-driven is vital.
- Don’t Ignore Multiple Complaints: A single dispute may be a misunderstanding, but multiple arbitrations or client disputes should encourage deeper research.
- Check Disciplinary History: Look up any financial advisor on Financial Advisor Complaints or directly on FINRA BrokerCheck. Transparency is your best tool.
- Ask Questions, Stay Informed: Request a clear explanation of any investment’s costs, liquidity restrictions, and risks. If something seems off, don’t hesitate to seek a second opinion from another licensed advisor or financial professional.
To illustrate just how costly adviser misconduct can be, consider that according to the Federal Trade Commission, the median investment-fraud victim loses thousands of dollars—often in products or
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.
