Merrill Lynch

The JPMC Complaints against James G. Dwyer, Somasundra B. Rao, Siddarth Dagar, Maria Castro Vainer, Anand Joglekar, Xiao Xiao, Elizabeth J. Naylor, Ana Cabrera-Vargas, Tara Williams, in part, set forth the following: Was criticized in a performance review for an email he sent out internally to members of his group expressing a concern that a senior Director had altered a consultant's findings regarding a Regulatory initiative project ("The Simple Model Project") Contacted OCC in writing to express concerns regarding JPM's regulatory defalcations; · An OCC regulator reviewed the information and informed that his concerns were reasonable; · included in the meeting invite for his Mid-Year Performance Review that he had communicated JPM defalcations to OCC regulators; · On October 28,2016, filed Complaint #124437763 alleging that JPM was obfuscating or withholding relevant material mandated by regulatory requirements. The Complaint also included allegations of lack of change control procedures in MGG; · In November 2016, Tara Williams received a copy of 's OCC complaint; · On January 3,2017, emailed another complaint to OCC alleging that JPM was violating the bank's prior consent order by ignoring policies in at least one line of business; Unsatisfactory progress on an initiative was later disavowed by the Director, who acknowledged later that the person who conducted the QA was too junior to be qualified to conduct the test, and that the departments high rate was due to the external storage of data and that there were no data deficiencies; · On February 25,2017 filed Complaint #125038673 alleging that regulatory process (SR 11/7) was being deliberately mismanaged to cause models to fail the process due to misconduct by supervisor, Sid Dagar. The two models included in the complaint were HedgeFRST (31600), Model Owner Marie Vainer, and Highbridge Delta, model owner Nakul Shankar; III. Mr., a Decorated Naval Officer, Wounded on Active Duty, Was Retaliated Against for Requesting an Accommodation for his Injuries Lieutenant is a United States Naval Officer who was seriously wounded while on active duty and underwent multiple spinal surgeries. As a direct result of his injuries, Mr. Is on the veteran's permanent disability retirement list with a 30% rating. When Mr. Applied with JPM, he informed JPM that he was a protected veteran who required accommodations for his spinal disabilities. Among the accommodations needed by Mr., was a specially designed desk chair with custom settings to avoid pain, imbalance and falling hazards. Despite the foregoing, Mr. 's chair was routinely misappropriated by co-workers, specifically Xiao Xiao and Anand Joglekar. Marie Castro Vanier acknowledged knowledge of this activity during a recorded phone conversation. Stacey Friedman Tara Williams April__, 2017 Page 4 of 5 When Mr. Complained to his supervisor and Employee Relations that he needed an accommodation that would prevent the taking of his specially calibrated chair, he was ignored. In response, Mr., contacted Managing Director of Military Affairs, Ross Brown, to request that he intercede on Mr. 's behalf. In Mr. 's next performance evaluation he was criticized, and given a lower performance rating, for having allegedly made the accommodation request "improperly". Confirmed by a voice print with Elizabeth J. Naylor present in meeting with James G. Dwyer and Somasundra B. Rao. The foregoing actions constitute discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the ADA and New York's anti-disability discrimination laws. Sourced from SiteJabber Review by c s. 1 year ago The Complaints against James G. Dwyer, Somasundra B. Rao, Siddarth Dagar, Marie Castro Vainer, Anand Joglekar and Xiao Xiao, Elizabeth J. Naylor, Ana Cabrera-Vargas, in part, set forth the following: · In August 2016, was criticized in a performance review for an email he sent out internally to members of his group expressing a concern that a senior Director had altered a consultant's findings regarding a Regulatory initiative project ("The Simple Model Project") · In August 2016, contacted OCC in writing to express concerns regarding JPM's regulatory defalcations; · An OCC regulator reviewed the information and informed that his concerns were reasonable; Stacey Friedman Tara Williams April__, 2017 Page 3 of 5 · included in the meeting invite for his Mid-Year Performance Review that he had communicated JPM defalcations to OCC regulators; · On October 28,2016, filed Complaint #124437763 alleging that JPM was obfuscating or withholding relevant material mandated by regulatory requirements. The Complaint also included allegations of lack of change control procedures in MGG; · In November 2016, Tara Williams received a copy of 's OCC complaint; · On January 3,2017, emailed another complaint to OCC alleging that JPM was violating the bank's prior consent order by ignoring policies in at least one line of business; · On January 11,2017, was placed on a false Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP"). That is, the purported basis for the PIP - unsatisfactory progress on an initiative was later disavowed by the Director, who acknowledged later that the person who conducted the QA was too junior to be qualified to conduct the test, and that the departments high rate was due to the external storage of data and that there were no data deficiencies; · On February 25,2017 filed Complaint #125038673 alleging that regulatory process (SR 11/7) was being deliberately mismanaged to cause models to fail the process due to misconduct by supervisor, Sid Dagar. The two models included in the complaint were HedgeFRST (31600), Model Owner Marie Vainer, and Highbridge Delta, model owner Nakul Shankar; On March 3,2017, Mr. Was placed on administrative leave and ten days later his 's employment was terminated. III. Mr., a Decorated Naval Officer, Wounded on Active Duty, Was Retaliated Against for Requesting an Accommodation for his Injuries Lieutenant is a United States Naval Officer who was seriously wounded while on active duty and underwent multiple spinal surgeries. As a direct result of his injuries, Mr. Is on the veteran's permanent disability retirement list with a 30% rating. When Mr. Applied with JPM, he informed JPM that he was a protected veteran who required accommodations for his spinal disabilities. Among the accommodations needed by Mr., was a specially designed desk chair with custom settings to avoid pain, imbalance and falling hazards. Despite the foregoing, Mr. 's chair was routinely misappropriated by co-workers, specifically Xiao Xiao and Anand Joglekar. Marie Castro Vanier acknowledged knowledge of this activity during a recorded phone conversation. Stacey Friedman Tara Williams April__, 2017 Page 4 of 5 When Mr. Complained to his supervisor and Employee Relations that he needed an accommodation that would prevent the taking of his specially calibrated chair, he was ignored. In response, Mr., contacted Managing Director of Military Affairs, Ross Brown, to request that he intercede on Mr. 's behalf. In Mr. 's next performance evaluation he was criticized, and given a lower performance rating, for having allegedly made the accommodation request "improperly". Confirmed by a voice print with Elizabeth J. Naylor present in meeting with James G. Dwyer and Somasundra B. Rao. The foregoing actions constitute discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the ADA and New York's anti-disability discrimination laws.

'm currently with Merrill Lynch in Carmel and have been a client barely a month and am very unhappy with the overall service and advice I have received. I am retired. My financial advisor had to call an outside CPA to find out the maximum I might withdraw from my IRA per year without incurring any tax liability because Merrill Lynch does not deal with tax liabilities, my financial advisor citing federal regulations as the reason for this limitation. How can an institution give advice to a retiree and oversee his account without being concerned about taxes? He also told me that the $15,000 figure he received from the CPA is only an estimate or guess. He claims he has no better knowledge as to how to answer my concern. Because my advisor is in Carmel, he doesn't come into the city very often, though he promised me when I signed on with him that he comes into the city at least 2-3 times a week. My financial advisor arranged with my annuity company to surrender an annuity and to receive a check for $24,000, but the check came to my address and not to Merrill Lynch. Instead of being able to turn the check over to my advisor in person, I had to wait three days for my financial advisor to send me a self-addressed envelope and then wait another four days before Merrill Lynch could deposit the check -- this after learning my account had lost more than $3,000 in a single day and right after I had signed on with Merrill Lynch. Finally, a snafu developed between Merrill Lynch and me when it reproved me for sending my account number to my new advisor (through a screenshot of my portfolio) using my personal email when I questioned him as to why my account had suddenly lost more than $3,000 just moments after my portfolio had officially installed online. That same email later caused the Administrative Manager at Merrill Lynch to write me a letter saying she was investigating that email and while the investigation was ongoing, please contact her with any questions, which I did - twice -- and was unable to reach this woman at all. Her voicemail indicated she would call me back, but she never did. (And my financial advisor never gave me a complete explanation for my losses. The downturn happened, okay, but why did my account portfolio profile at ML state I lost only $831 when, in fact, it lost thousands? No answer. I think it was to make Merrill Lynch's efforts at monitoring my account look better -- cosmetic. He merely told me my email to him contained "key words," like the NSA monitoring terrorists online and in emails, which triggered an investigation, never stating which words in my brief email were the trigger or "key words.") Later, I found out this woman, the Administrative Manager, was on vacation and there was no one else I might speak with at Merrill Lynch. In her letter to me, she wrote, "At Merrill Lynch, we strive to create an optimal experience for every client." Really? Why couldn't she have placed on the outgoing voicemail recording news of her absence and/or an alternative number for clients and customers to call as a customer service courtesy since she knew she wouldn't be available to answer the phone while on vacation? Oh, that would require this bureaucratic administrator to be the words she wrote in my letter and behaving other than a hypocrite toward the client. Ain't gonna happen. These are just some highlights of my discontent with Merrill Lynch. I only recently learned about fiduciaries and fiduciary duty, which may or may not be helpful to a potential client. At first, I thought it was necessary to have a fiduciary, but fiduciary duty can also be interpreted so loosely... Well, I guess the benefit of last resort is that you legally can sue the individual or company who is a fiduciary if there's a major financial screw-up, but having a fiduciary duty doesn't necessarily mean a client won't lose money, even lots of it. My financial advisor says Merrill Lynch is a fiduciary, but I lost $3,000 right out of the gate, and my financial advisor's response was, "Well, it was a 5-day downturn in the market; there's nothing that could have been done." And so fiduciary duty can mean that the financial advisor simply monitors your portfolio as it declines in value. Right? What a benefit! I had talked with my financial advisor for a whole month about my risk tolerance -- or lack of it -- and yet my pension monies were put into a portfolio that contained more risk than I knew existed. Once I confronted him about the situation, he blamed me for not understanding what was the true nature of my portfolio. His response was a testament to how poorly he had been listening to me all along.