Melissa Plotkin Spickler, also known as Melissa P. Plotkin, Melissa P. Plotkins, and Melissa Plotkinspickler, has been under the spotlight lately because of claims from recent clients. The esteemed broker and financial advisor, with a record starting November 25, 1980, and August 26, 1986, respectively, has been linked to some unsettling claims about unsuitable investment recommendations and lack of adherence to clients’ instructions.
Investor’s Unsettling Claim Against Spickler
Spickler’s troubles started to brew in 2021 when a client from her employer, Merrill Lynch, lodged a complaint. This customer alleged that Spickler had not acted in their best interest – the purchase of a closed-end fund in April 2021 had inflicted financial damage on them. Although the firm handled this claim swiftly by paying $32,402.18 in damages on October 20, 2022, the damage was already done. Despite the allegations, Spickler maintained her innocence.
To make things a bit more explicit, we need to take a quick glimpse into the rules Spickler supposedly violated. FINRA rules boldly specify that brokers must only recommend investments they believe are suitable for their clients. This rule revolves around two duties: reasonable basis suitability and customer-specific suitability. Thus, Spickler’s alleged failure to act in the client’s best interest was a substantial infraction.
Spickler’s Continuing Troubles
Sadly, the disquieting reports about Spickler’s conduct didn’t stop there. Another group of clients — this time trustees — also contested Spickler’s sales practices. It was a familiar accusation: failure to act in the clients’ best interest. On this particular occasion, Merrill Lynch chose to take the moral high ground and settled the matter on October 19, 2022, compensating the clients with $39,663.08.
Adding to her woes, there was another investor claim on Spickler from August 15, 2005, asserting that Spickler had made an unsuitable investment recommendation resulting in damages on mutual funds. Although the client sought compensation of about $50,497 from Spickler or Merrill Lynch, this claim was denied.
The Last Straw: Disobedience Of Clients’ Instructions
Further allegations were also brought against Spickler’s professional ethics. A Merrill Lynch investor lodged a complaint on September 14, 2004, claiming that Spickler had failed to comply with the client’s instructions and instead engaged in unsuitable trading for their retirement accounts. Though this complaint failed to yield any compensatory damages, it added a blemish to Spickler’s career.
In the finance world, one’s actions can significantly impact the lives of others, and as we can see from the allegations against Spickler, these actions – if proven true – have resulted in substantial financial losses for unsuspecting investors.
Her CRD number [CRD: 719397] speaks volumes about her professional journey. Despite the denial of these allegations by both Spickler and Merrill Lynch, her CRD number stands as an open invitation to any curious party to gain a clear insight into her brokerage career.
It’s important to remember, though, that all these allegations and complaints are thus far claims. They are yet to be proven true or otherwise. It goes without saying, however, that these incidents stand as a robust warning to investors worldwide to be vigilant and thorough in vetting their broker or financial advisor.