Understanding the David Griffith Allegations: A Financial Analyst’s Take

From Utica, NY, an unsettling tale unfolds in the financial realm. It’s a stark reminder that not all that glitters is valuable – a lesson some investors are learning the hard way after dealings with NY Based stockbroker, David Griffith. These individuals are now grappling with the possibility of significant financial loss.

Currently with Lifemark Securities Corp and also operating under David Griffith & Company, Griffith finds himself in the thick of an accusatory spotlight. A customer complaint brought before The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) alleges misconduct by Griffith. To add to this, a pending customer dispute casts a shadow, with potential damages reported at $150,000 – a figure that is anything but trivial and underscores the gravity of these claims.

The Specter of FINRA Arbitration

The heart of this discord lies in a distressing claim made in November 2023 by a customer. They assert that between February 2020 and March 2021, Griffith sold them into an alternative investment. The troubling twist is that the issuing company of this investment declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, leading to stark losses for the investor.

The potential for David Griffith to be summoned to FINRA arbitration is a significant juncture in this narrative. It’s helpful to look at Griffith’s public CRD number 4662702 for insight – a detailed record of any past grievances or disciplinary actions involving a broker.

stock news(AD) Lost money because of bad financial advice or outright fraud? You may get it back by filing a complaint. Haselkorn & Thibaut has 50+ years of experience and a 98% success rate. Don’t delay if you’ve suffered losses. 

Call Haselkorn & Thibaut at 1-888-784-3315 for a free consultation, or visit InvestmentFraudLawyers.com to schedule. No Recovery, No Fee.

Questionable Recommendations?

Central to the controversy is the suspicion that Griffith may have sidestepped the FINRA suitability rule. This rule compels brokers and their firms to recommend only those transactions or investment strategies that align with their customers’ profiles, considering aspects such as age, financial situation, risk appetite, tax implications, and investment experience.

Should these allegations be substantiated, it implies a breach of FINRA Rule 2111 – suitability. The ramifications for Griffith and his firm could extend beyond reputational damage to include punitive financial repercussions.

The Risks of Alternative Investments

The case against Griffith involves the endorsement of a potentially unsuitable alternative investment. Such investments – like hedge funds, commodities, real estate funds, and others – differentiate from familiar stocks, bonds, or cash because of their allure of higher yields.

Yet, these investments come with their own set of higher risks, lower regulatory oversight, and other challenges like liquidity concerns and higher investor qualification thresholds. Regrettably, an initially compelling investment avenue has culminated in a possible $150,000 setback. This situation, if validated, exemplifies the critical need for strict adherence to regulations, meticulous risk evaluation, and the ramifications of purported broker wrongdoing. As Warren Buffett wisely said, “Risk comes from not knowing what you’re doing.” In this context, it brings into sharp focus the potential pitfalls for both advisors and clients when navigating the precarious terrain of alternative investments.

As for the final chapter in the David Griffith saga, whether it will end in a FINRA arbitration or not is yet to be seen. This episode, nonetheless, serves as a cautionary tale about the inherent risks that come with alternative investments and the vigilance needed when venturing into such financial decisions.

Scroll to Top