Janney Montgomery Scott LLC (Janney)

BrokerCheck indicates that Janney Montgomery Scott has 113 total disclosures on its securities industry record, including 48 regulatory events and 64 FINRA arbitration awards.

Failure to Supervise Its Securities Representative
In July of 2016, the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities brought an enforcement action against Janney Montgomery Scott for its alleged failure to supervise a securities representative.
State regulators determined that a former agent of Janney Montgomery Scott was able to pull off a fraud scheme because of the firm's failure to conduct basic oversight. In relation to this case, the broker-dealer was fined $125,000 and ordered to pay $10,000 in investigative costs.

Materially Misleading Disclosures: Municipal Securities
In February of 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought a complaint against Janney Montgomery Scott after a report that the broker-dealer made material misrepresentations in relation to municipal securities that were being offered to investors. It should be noted that the SEC credited the firm for self-reporting this issue. Janney Montgomery Scott agreed to pay a $500,000 civil penalty and to review and revise policies and procedures to address the matter.

FINRA Arbitration Award: Unauthorized Trading
In February of 2019, a FINRA arbitration panel based in Boston, MA awarded a former Janney Montgomery Scott investor $115,780.01 in financial compensation for losses related to unauthorized trading and the alleged violations of state and federal securities regulations.

FINRA Arbitration Award: Material Misrepresentations
In June of 2016, a FINRA arbitration panel in Pittsburgh, PA ruled against Janney Montgomery Scott. The underlying complaint was related to allegations that a representative of this brokerage firm made material misrepresentations to an investor. In fact, the representative in this case allegedly failed to invest the customer's money at all, instead purportedly diverting the funds. In reviewing the claim, the arbitration panel determined that Janney Montgomery Scott was liable for its failure to properly supervise the financial advisor. The brokerage firm was ordered to pay $320,488.77 in financial compensation to the claimant.

Here is a Wall Street Journal article written in April 2001 which cited an investor's negative experience with Janney Montgomery Scott:

"Wendy White, a former executive secretary and design consultant, says that in December 1999 she opened a brokerage account to manage about $500,000. The money was in a trust for her mother, Marion, now 80 years old and suffering from Alzheimer's disease. The broker, Richard Gluck from the Boca Raton, Fla., office of Janney Montgomery Scott LLC, promised to act conservatively, she says.

Instead, her lawyer, Robert Rex of Boca Raton, says the broker made more than 300 trades, mostly buying and selling technology stocks such as BroadVision Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Infospace Inc. and Priceline.com Inc. When the portfolio's value started falling, the broker began borrowing against the value of the portfolio to buy more technology stocks on margin, Mr. Rex says.

In one month alone, dozens of trades were made in the account, according to a brokerage statement covering the period Aug. 26 through Sept. 29,2000. During that month, the account paid $3,321.55 in margin interest and had a margin loan that climbed as high as $422,000, the statement says.

In late February, the trust was worth about $15,000, according to an account statement. Ms. White says she recently sold her house on Amelia Island, near Jacksonville, Fla., to raise cash and moved to Atlanta to look for a job in sales and marketing so she can pay her mother's living and medical expenses. Mr. Rex says the account paid an estimated $94,000 in brokerage charges.

Mr. Gluck declined to comment. A spokesman for Philadelphia-based Janney Montgomery Scott, a subsidiary of Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., also declined to comment. A letter to Ms. White from Janney Montgomery's compliance department said, "It is our belief that the firm and the financial consultant, conducted themselves properly." The letter added, "It is our understanding that the majority of the investment decisions were made by you with little or no input from Mr. Gluck."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB**************

Typical response from Janney!
Nothing has change with these full service brokerage firms.
Greed is their foundation.
The only change is improving their tactics to circumvent the law.
The broker made money but redirect the blame towards the investor.
No matter how rich or poor, how well educated or not about investments the investor may be, there is absolutely no fiduciary responsibility from the broker side. Janney's goal and business model is to seize every opportunity to make money at the expense of the investor!

I have been lucky enough to be with Janney for almost 15 years and have received best in class advice since the start of my relationship. They have consistently delivered holistic advice to me in a very transparent way. If I had a question or an issue along the way, I felt that they always did what was right for me the client. No questions asked. I finally found a firm that delivers a boutique client experience with the depth and breath of a national firm.

My son in law Sean works there. I always see him go out of his way to help others even when they are not a big client. He always tells me people aren't born rich and most people are behind schedule because simple investing isn't really taught in school. So he's always available to educate others. Just though I would share after reading of a bad experience someone had. I'd like everyone to know that every adviser isn't created equal.