Man with empty pockets hiding money

Ryan James Ott of Woodbridge New Jersey a stockbroker formerly registered with Equitable Advisors LLC has been discharged on November 2, 2020 based upon allegations of Ott failing to be responsive to supervisory personnel and for neglecting to handle customer inquiries during the period that he was placed on heightened supervision.

FINRA Public Disclosure Ryan James Ott reveals that Ott has been identified in three customer initiated investment related disputes regarding allegations of his wrongdoing during the period that he was associated with AXA Advisors. On September 21, 2017, a customer filed an investment related complaint regarding Ott’s conduct where the customer sought unspecified compensatory damages founded on accusations that the customer had been misled by the stockbroker as it pertained to their purchase of a universal life insurance policy. The Firm found no basis to the customer complaint.

Ott is also the subject of a customer initiated investment related written complaint on August 1, 2018 in which the customer requested unspecified damages based upon allegations that the customer had been sold investments that were not suitable for the customer. The complaint also alleges that the customer was not made fully aware of consequences of surrendering an individual retirement account that the customer held since 2018.  Again, “the Firm found no basis to the customer complaint.”

On March 11, 2019, another customer initiated investment related complaint involving Ott’s activities was resolved for $12,532.54 in damages supported by accusations of omissions by the stockbroker. According to the complaint, the customer was not notified about the tax consequences pertaining to transferring assets from a variable annuity into a brokerage account.  On the surface, this complaint also sounds misguided.

Ott was registered with Equitable Advisors from June 7, 2013.  However, on November 3, 2020, he was terminated based upon “the lack of timely responsiveness to branch supervisor.”  We have no information relating to this case of the facts, but we are going to guess that this same supervisor derived commissions or an override from Otts’ production, and Ott, who appears to have had some financial distress and unresolved liens of his own, was literally no longer worth supervising.