"Page Updates and Controversy Section==

During our regular monitoring of social media and our internet reputation, members of the Marketing department at Raymond James noticed that much of the information on this page is outdated and/or incomplete.  We would like to take a more proactive approach to updating this information with current numbers, etc.  We are not sure who was responsible for originally writing the page, and we would like to make edits so that it reads less like a promotional piece/advertisement.

We would also like to put the following ""Controvery"" section up for discussion.  This section was recently posted on the page, and reads unobjectively.  Many of the claims are not reliablity sourced, and the extensiveness of the section was disproportionate relative to both the size of our page and similar sections on competitors' pages.  We have left three of our majo/significant events on the page, and are including the smaller/unsourced claims here for discussion.  We are open to discussing how best to frame this section so that it reads more objectively.

Controversy

Raymond James has had been one of the most controversial firms with 49 regulatory events and 61 finalized arbitration's including housing several ponzi schemes according to Finra.http://brokercheck.finra.org/Support/ReportViewer.aspx In spite of all the controversy that surrounds Raymond James, the firm has been vocal about trying to prevent any increase in regulation of the financial services industry.http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0813601120101108 
Some of the most notable controversies have included:

In 1997, Charles LeCroy, a Raymond James banker, helped issue bonds in Jefferson County through a noncompetitive process. These bonds ended up funding corrupt activities and led to the county's bankruptcy.http://46in08.blogspot.com/2009/08/death-of-jefferson-county-alabama-and.html

In 2000, NASD regulators censured Raymond James & Associates, Inc. for “yield burning” activities on municipal securities. yield burning involves overcharges by brokerage firms on Treasury securities purchased with proceeds from the sale of municipal bonds. Yield burning by brokerage firms jeopardized the tax-exempt status of interest paid to holders of those bonds.The multi-million dollar settlement resolved the civil fraud charges under the False Claims Act against Raymond James. The payments made by Raymond James will also resolve certain tax-related claims of the Internal Revenue Service.http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2000-45.txt

In 2000, Raymond James was paid $650,000 to undertake the merger of HomeGold with smaller firms. The minimal amount of due diligence conducted by the firm prevented them from discovering the fraud that was going on. The parent firm later went bankrupt causing millions in losses and one of the biggest fraud cases in the state of South Carolina.http://www.usatoday.com/money/2004-02-05-homegold_x.htm

In 2003, Raymond James was found guilty of overcharging investors who made large purchases of mutual funds. There were nearly 160,000 trades that were overcharged and Raymond James had no systems in place to capture these trades.,http://www.txcm.com/reports/Raymond%20James%20mutual%20trading%20scandal.pdfhttp://registeredrep.com/institutions/raymondjames/finance_raymond_james_audits/

In 2005, the NASD fined Raymond James $750,000 for violations stemming from a failure to supervise the firm’s fee-based brokerage accounts.

In 2007, three ex-Raymond James employees sued, saying they were paid less than men and denied opportunities.http://www.sptimes.com/2007/10/21/Business/Women_claim_sex_bias_.shtml

In 2008, Jerry Rose was found to be conducting a ponzi scheme using Raymond James as custodian to the assets which amounted to over $16 million.http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/06/16/story13.html

In 2008, Raymond James received lots of criticism for using obscure provisions under SOX in which they denied whistle-blowing claims on the basis that the claims were made against a subsidiary company.http://whistlersear.wordpress.com/tag/sox-whistleblower/ These laws were reversed when the new Frank Dowd act was put into place on July 21, 2010. Raymond James was mentioned as one of the companies that abused the laws, as a means to conduct ethical and legal grounds. This included the case of John Hughart v. Raymond James in which the complaints regarding lax supervision in compliance was overlooked on the grounds that the employee worked a a subsidiary and therefore had no opportunity for restitution from Raymond James.http://www.oalj.dol.gov/Decisions/ALJ/SOX/2004/HUGHART_JOHN_v_RAYMOND_JAMES_and_AS_200