The Schultz Group Morgan Stanley – Worst Advisor in Florida

The Schultz Group Morgan Stanley is a financial advisory firm based in Miami Beach, Florida. It has a long history of facing lawsuits from its clients for misrepresentation, unsuitability, breach of contract, and professional negligence. 

In the following review, you’ll learn about these disputes as the firm wouldn’t tell you about them by themselves. 

About the Schultz Group Morgan Stanley

The Schultz Group Morgan Stanley is a financial advisory firm in Miami Beach, Florida. Its office is located at 1691 Michigan Ave Suite 550, Miami Beach, FL 33139, US and its contact number is 305-695-6116. 

The Schultz Group claims to act as an extended family of its clients. It also claims to work alongside its clients and their families to understand their goals and grow their wealth. Some of the services available here include alternative investments, comprehensive wealth planning, pre-liquidity planning, fixed income, tailored lending, sustainable investing, estate advisory, family governance, lifestyle advisory, and consolidated reporting. 

The managing director of this firm is Andrew Schultz who is also the senior portfolio management director. Other notable people at this firm include Peter Collazo and Amanda Molina.  

See also  Easy Street Capital - Lawsuit and Mistreatment of Clients

Even though this firm makes plenty of major claims about its expertise, the Schultz Group Morgan Stanley has quite a rocky history with its clients. Thanks to its leadership, the firm has attracted a ton of lawsuits from its disgruntled customers. In the following points, I have expanded on these disputes so you can understand why they aren’t as reliable as they claim to be.

The Questionable Leadership of the Schultz Group Morgan Stanley

First Dispute of Andrew Schultz

In his career as a financial advisor, Andrew Schultz has faced a total of seven disputes from his customers. The first dispute occurred in 2002 where the client alleged unsuitability regarding one or more investments. 

xiqrJ9Y0SeY922Y

They requested $20,000 in damages but Andrew’s firm denied the claim. Note that his firm has kept most of the information about this dispute hidden, which is a huge red flag. 

Moreover, the firm hasn’t shared as to why they denied the claim. 

See also  Antonio Centeno

Most disputes of unsuitability and misrepresentation tend to end in the advisor’s favor because of the waivers they make you sign in the beginning of your professional relationship with them. 

Andrew Schultz has used this tactic quite frequently in his career as you’ll see when you read about his following disputes.

Second Dispute

The second dispute of Andrew Schultz occurred in 2003. Again, a client alleged unsuitability regarding one or more investments and the requested damages were $23,000

AFWet4wXf9HDoPLW9L3lSaZu2Bb5bzVr2sePjFlEVBjWKSE2w8GYalHfEtuNEIxZ45IU9 jlbPe31Kw0KRCI5XcKALqi3mzRTsDxaZDKN9CtEg0M5duSB4oOY 9zr6DDUu2fynQn

However, Andrew’s firm denied the claim by saying that the recommended investments aligned with their investment objectives. 

The Schultz Group Morgan Stanley isn’t the only firm that uses this method to get away with paying tens of thousands of dollars in disputes. There are plenty of other advisors who employ this method to avoid responsibility. The Reim Group Morgan Stanley is another firm that uses this tactic for this purpose.

Third Dispute

This dispute occurred on 4-28-2004. Here, the client alleged, inter alia, law and statutory securities violations in connection with transactions for 2001-2003. They requested $83,852 in damages.

See also  Tai Lopez Ecomm Agency
Gj8jap IgENIC 5p2OdxmTCmhf4 t5JuTkRT0kR rQcZYBjDtvglqrhWSv9gqQUhHtf 5lYG9B Ch991pGceBB dye9Q2YhhW YUaAl4t MtTYrLKE456F w9WfbagMPo225dm z

However, like the last two disputes, Andrew’s firm denied the claim. This time, they haven’t cited the reason as to why they denied the claim. 

Fourth Dispute

The fourth dispute of Andrew Schultz Morgan Stanley occurred in 2004. Here, the client alleged unsuitability, breach of contract, violation of chapter 517, professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unauthorized trading of equity transactions between 2001 and 2003. 

hL2z67aLDHztRn5eu8npFecwT6luuVNUe9OcDXWW kEXwUlmgO5KJWMU47GS5Av9hG0wy SFuGSm0dgWhj1ZarkMgt3WAE e3iJz8RHuy5kcK2 kvKEjZB9ic7b2pjEc1oE3I7w

The client requested $250,000 in damages and settled the case for $45,000. 

Fifth Dispute

This dispute occurred in 2007. Here, the client alleged unauthorized trading, misrepresentation, and unsuitability. They requested $25,000 in damages and settled the matter for $9,500. 

rmgAxsu5Jo59XR7FqJggF4gPQawJGAZw3MnehV4f5zsVHbJY1dKIo4icrtWK9Pbu4fqBsgEV8FvV18dwd62EW6yFHvWBC9EWIPjT89XPq w5lU9gnWP7TLK2Jr7EvrKSgowwolK

The Schultz Group Morgan Stanley responded to this dispute by saying that they settled the case to avoid the costs and uncertainties of potential litigation. 

Like most of the disclosures of Andrew Schultz, there isn’t much information available for this dispute. It seems he has deliberately tried to omit as many details as possible to mitigate damage.

See also  Pratul V. Agnihotri

Sixth Dispute

This dispute occurred in 2009. Here, the client claimed liquidity of auction rate security purchased in March 2008 was misrepresented. They requested $50,000 in damages and settled the case for the same amount. 

uLFU O13IorlDEWMp6Jyvrqu0MN7RZrWIDip uTdp0vpq PES1hLrLAiPFp370toEE0jerxDOlYm6pLXZOUpwngO2 rTxE0OuRJTvJ7u5oRtxk6PlvB nj0KSRB7jE jJgIrsIP7

However, Andrew’s firm has responded to this dispute by saying that they settled the matter only to comply with the FINRA Regulatory Notice 09-12. 

Seventh Dispute

The last dispute listed on the FINRA BrokerCheck profile of Schultz occurred in 2010. Here, the client alleged that her account was mismanaged and was invested in speculative securities. However, she withdrew the dispute later. 

There is no information available on why she withdrew the dispute. 

Skilled financial advisors rarely face a legal dispute in their career and the Schultz Group leader has faced seven so far. Keep in mind that many clients avoid filing a dispute because of the complications present in this process and its low success rate. 

Conclusion

After going through these disputes, one thing is clear: The Schultz Group Morgan Stanley is not a reliable firm. Its leadership has a history of misrepresentation and giving unsuitable recommendations. 

See also  Tony Robbins

It would be unwise to trust them with your financial future. You would be better off with someone else. 

2.2 Total Score
A Terrible Choice for Investors

The Schultz Group Morgan Stanley has faced seven legal disputes from its clients so far. There’s no telling how many disputes they would face in the future, seeing the poor provisions present in their disclosures. If you want your investments to stay safe, avoid this firm.

2.8Expert Score
Trust
1.5
Experience
4
Service
3
Concern for Clients
2.5
1.5User's score
Trust
1
Experience
2
Service
2
Concern for Clients
1
PROS
  • None
CONS
  • Has faced 7 legal disputes
  • Untrustworthy
  • Horrible reputation
Add your review  |  Read reviews and comments
1 Comment
  1. 0.75
    Trust
    10
    Experience
    20
    Service
    20
    Concern for Clients
    10

    No respect for a client’s time and schedule. Extremely rude and pretentious staff. They provide better service at an independent RIA. Morgan Stanley should fire these guys.

    Helpful(1) Unhelpful(0)You have already voted this

Leave a reply

Your total score

Gripeo
Logo
Register New Account