Robert Alpert has managed my money for years and I trusted him. I found out that he was placing trades without telling me and charging ridiculous high commissions on those trades. He also bought Unit Investment Trusts in my account without telling me that the fees are ridiculously high.
To make things worse, he would then sell those Unit Investment Trusts not long after he bought them and would double collect fees. He does the same things with bonds - he will buy them for you and then without telling you he will sell them and replace them with a similar bond so that you are charged double.
He is not to be trusted and if you have your money with him you should run. If you are thinking about giving him your money to manage find someone else. Bottom line this is a bad guy. If you find that he has done this to you, hire an attorney like I did and you hopefully will be able to collect damages.
My wife and I had a long relationship wtih the Senior VP Investment Broker, Mr. Michael H. Urner CRD# 2642438 at Wells Fargo Advisors, Laguna Beach. We moved our portfolio to another brokerage after several instances in which Mr. Urner displayed irresponsible actions with our investments. He inexplicably purchased a significant amount of silver at the absolute top of that market. Really stupid. Also, he flatly stated that other investments had "No Penalties" for borrowing against the fund. We learned that there was, indeed, a loss of valuable features with such a move. Also he sold a personally selected stock without our knowledge or permission.
I believe these issues were not necesssarily illeagal...but they were certainly unethical and also beyond Mr. Urner's fiduciary responsibility.
HOWEVER, we learned later that he totally misrepresented the features and terms of a Lincoln Financial Annuity that he strongly recommended. Mr. Urner flatly LIED. That certainly IS illegal. There was no misunderstanding. He clearly and repeatedly stated that the annuity guaranteed 5% compounded interest that was completely liquid and payable in full, principal and interest, after 7 years. Witihdrawing any portion of the annuity or closing the account in less than 7 years would be subject to penalties.
During one of our in-person meetings, Urner strongly recommended the $100,000 annuity. I made it crystal clear, several times, that we were not interested in the long term features of such annuities. I plainly told him we did NOT want to draw the proceeds from the annuity "over time". I repeatedly made it clear that our goal was to "park" the $100,000 in a "safe place" for the 7 year term he described...and then cash-out all principal and interest; more than $140,000! I was later told by a Lincoln Financial representative that such a result was just not possible. Lincoln Financial seemed embarrassed by the deceit.
After considerable aggravation, including a number of very candid conversations with Lincoln Financial, we liquidated the annuity after several years, losing considerable growth associated with the annuity.
We recognize that there are always risks associated with any financial investment. However, our loss in this case is not related to any misunderstanding or market change. Our loss is directly the result of egregious, bare-faced lies made by Mr. Urner.
We would like compensation and an apology from Mr. Urner and Wells Fargo Advisors
In a seven year period when the S&P 500 index grew by slightly more than 100%, my nest egg in the Wells Fargo Advisors Fundsource program grew by only 58%. I made no contributions or withdrawals during this period.
Was the other 42% in squandered market gains all due to WFA’s ineptitude? Good heavens, no! Eleven percent of the original nest egg was PAID to WFA, in return for them squandering the remaining 31%. In summary, I got 58%, WFA got 11%, and the other 31%? Whoosh! Gone (maybe…see below).
The fees were paid because this was a “managed” portfolio, the Fundsource program in particular. I signaled a desire for long term growth and a tolerance for risk. Wells Fargo Advisors, as a justification for their fee, promised regular reviews of the portfolio to remove underperforming elements.
Following a sharp drop in the nest egg’s value in a falling market in the latter half of 2011, WFA appeared to have adjusted its strategy and resumed following the S&P 500 growth trend.
But beginning in 2014, WFA appears to have fired its analysts and trained a pack of orangutans to throw darts at a board full of fund possibilities. How else could you explain the nest egg’s performance since then, including the extraordinary second half of 2014 (circled on the chart), during which the monkeys managed to lose some of the nest egg in a rising market?
These “managed” programs, whose fees are a percentage of the portfolio balance, should contain an incentive for WFA to do better than this.
But conspiracy theorists could be forgiven for speculating on a far more lucrative approach for WFA than waiting for the monkeys to have a lucky fiscal quarter, namely, put all the Fundsource investors’ assets into an S&P 500 index fund (the upper line in the chart), provide the investors with regular reports to justify why their investment (the lower line) consistently underperforms the market - replete with pages of figures and graphs, and yards of disclaimers - and pocket the difference, the lost 31% in this instance.
After all, if WFA is as smart as they should be to justify their fees, they would be quite capable technically of the hypothesis above. And it’s well within WFA’s ethical boundaries. Remember, this is the company that recently paid a $185 million fine over its staff’s creating some two million fake accounts.
Just as startling as the poor portfolio performance (which fundamentally altered my retirement schedule) was the massive indifference of WFA staff when presented with the summary of the damage they did. It was an attitude similar to that of the operator of a roadside restaurant that can peddle sorry meals all year long without needing repeat business, just new suckers driving by.
Anyone with a high tolerance for oily claptrap should contact Sean McVey (who consented to the chart’s publication) at 239-254-2230 or [email protected] for his self-serving and condescending explanation of why you too should give WFA your money and wave goodbye to 42% of a rising market in seven years.
For a stern reminder why it’s pointless to complain about people like this, contact WFA Assist. VP David Clement at 314-242-3159 and listen to his “past performance is no predictor…” patter.
Wells Fargo Advisors Reviews
Robert Alpert has managed my money for years and I trusted him. I found out that he was placing trades without telling me and charging ridiculous high commissions on those trades. He also bought Unit Investment Trusts in my account without telling me that the fees are ridiculously high.
To make things worse, he would then sell those Unit Investment Trusts not long after he bought them and would double collect fees. He does the same things with bonds - he will buy them for you and then without telling you he will sell them and replace them with a similar bond so that you are charged double.
He is not to be trusted and if you have your money with him you should run. If you are thinking about giving him your money to manage find someone else. Bottom line this is a bad guy. If you find that he has done this to you, hire an attorney like I did and you hopefully will be able to collect damages.
My wife and I had a long relationship wtih the Senior VP Investment Broker, Mr. Michael H. Urner CRD# 2642438 at Wells Fargo Advisors, Laguna Beach. We moved our portfolio to another brokerage after several instances in which Mr. Urner displayed irresponsible actions with our investments. He inexplicably purchased a significant amount of silver at the absolute top of that market. Really stupid. Also, he flatly stated that other investments had "No Penalties" for borrowing against the fund. We learned that there was, indeed, a loss of valuable features with such a move. Also he sold a personally selected stock without our knowledge or permission.
I believe these issues were not necesssarily illeagal...but they were certainly unethical and also beyond Mr. Urner's fiduciary responsibility.
HOWEVER, we learned later that he totally misrepresented the features and terms of a Lincoln Financial Annuity that he strongly recommended. Mr. Urner flatly LIED. That certainly IS illegal. There was no misunderstanding. He clearly and repeatedly stated that the annuity guaranteed 5% compounded interest that was completely liquid and payable in full, principal and interest, after 7 years. Witihdrawing any portion of the annuity or closing the account in less than 7 years would be subject to penalties.
During one of our in-person meetings, Urner strongly recommended the $100,000 annuity. I made it crystal clear, several times, that we were not interested in the long term features of such annuities. I plainly told him we did NOT want to draw the proceeds from the annuity "over time". I repeatedly made it clear that our goal was to "park" the $100,000 in a "safe place" for the 7 year term he described...and then cash-out all principal and interest; more than $140,000! I was later told by a Lincoln Financial representative that such a result was just not possible. Lincoln Financial seemed embarrassed by the deceit.
After considerable aggravation, including a number of very candid conversations with Lincoln Financial, we liquidated the annuity after several years, losing considerable growth associated with the annuity.
We recognize that there are always risks associated with any financial investment. However, our loss in this case is not related to any misunderstanding or market change. Our loss is directly the result of egregious, bare-faced lies made by Mr. Urner.
We would like compensation and an apology from Mr. Urner and Wells Fargo Advisors
In a seven year period when the S&P 500 index grew by slightly more than 100%, my nest egg in the Wells Fargo Advisors Fundsource program grew by only 58%. I made no contributions or withdrawals during this period.
Was the other 42% in squandered market gains all due to WFA’s ineptitude? Good heavens, no! Eleven percent of the original nest egg was PAID to WFA, in return for them squandering the remaining 31%. In summary, I got 58%, WFA got 11%, and the other 31%? Whoosh! Gone (maybe…see below).
The fees were paid because this was a “managed” portfolio, the Fundsource program in particular. I signaled a desire for long term growth and a tolerance for risk. Wells Fargo Advisors, as a justification for their fee, promised regular reviews of the portfolio to remove underperforming elements.
Following a sharp drop in the nest egg’s value in a falling market in the latter half of 2011, WFA appeared to have adjusted its strategy and resumed following the S&P 500 growth trend.
But beginning in 2014, WFA appears to have fired its analysts and trained a pack of orangutans to throw darts at a board full of fund possibilities. How else could you explain the nest egg’s performance since then, including the extraordinary second half of 2014 (circled on the chart), during which the monkeys managed to lose some of the nest egg in a rising market?
These “managed” programs, whose fees are a percentage of the portfolio balance, should contain an incentive for WFA to do better than this.
But conspiracy theorists could be forgiven for speculating on a far more lucrative approach for WFA than waiting for the monkeys to have a lucky fiscal quarter, namely, put all the Fundsource investors’ assets into an S&P 500 index fund (the upper line in the chart), provide the investors with regular reports to justify why their investment (the lower line) consistently underperforms the market - replete with pages of figures and graphs, and yards of disclaimers - and pocket the difference, the lost 31% in this instance.
After all, if WFA is as smart as they should be to justify their fees, they would be quite capable technically of the hypothesis above. And it’s well within WFA’s ethical boundaries. Remember, this is the company that recently paid a $185 million fine over its staff’s creating some two million fake accounts.
Just as startling as the poor portfolio performance (which fundamentally altered my retirement schedule) was the massive indifference of WFA staff when presented with the summary of the damage they did. It was an attitude similar to that of the operator of a roadside restaurant that can peddle sorry meals all year long without needing repeat business, just new suckers driving by.
Anyone with a high tolerance for oily claptrap should contact Sean McVey (who consented to the chart’s publication) at 239-254-2230 or [email protected] for his self-serving and condescending explanation of why you too should give WFA your money and wave goodbye to 42% of a rising market in seven years.
For a stern reminder why it’s pointless to complain about people like this, contact WFA Assist. VP David Clement at 314-242-3159 and listen to his “past performance is no predictor…” patter.
Run don’t walk your money away from these crooks.