Zachary Morrison (CRD# 6877621) is a financial advisor and registered representative with Equitable Advisors, LLC working out of the firm’s branch office at 350 Essjay Road, Suite 300, Williamsville, New York. Our firm is investigating Mr. Morrison’s conduct in light of a customer complaint alleging that he reinvested client funds into a variable annuity without the client’s consent.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
According to his FINRA BrokerCheck report, Zachary Morrison has spent his entire securities career with Equitable Advisors and its predecessor firm.
- Equitable Advisors, LLC (CRD# 6627) – Registered Representative, New York, NY (November 2017–Present). Mr. Morrison is currently registered with Equitable Advisors, LLC and approved as a General Securities Representative with FINRA and as an investment adviser representative in multiple states.
- AXA Advisors, LLC – Registered Representative, New York, NY (November 2017–June 2020). Prior to a corporate name change and rebranding, Mr. Morrison was registered with AXA Advisors, LLC, which is part of the same broker-dealer organization as Equitable Advisors.
BrokerCheck also reflects non-investment related jobs, such as work as a personal trainer and service roles in the hospitality industry, as well as his time as a university student. However, his report shows no prior association with any other brokerage firm besides AXA/Equitable.
Zachary Morrison Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA BrokerCheck shows one customer dispute disclosure involving Zachary Morrison. While the matter was ultimately denied and closed with no action, the allegations provide important context for investors reviewing his background.
According to the disclosure:
- On or about October 8, 2025, a customer submitted a written complaint to Equitable Advisors, LLC.
- The customer alleged that Mr. Morrison reinvested their funds into a variable annuity without their consent, effectively executing a transaction the client claims was unauthorized.
- The complaint involved a variable annuity product and alleged damages of at least $5,000, with the firm noting that potential damages could exceed that amount. Variable annuities are long-term, complex products that often carry significant fees and surrender charges.
- The firm investigated the complaint and, on November 6, 2025, denied the customer’s claim and reported that it found no basis for the allegations. The matter is reflected as “Closed–No Action / Denied” on BrokerCheck, with no settlement or payment to the customer and no admission of wrongdoing by the broker.
While there is only one complaint, even a single allegation of an unauthorized variable annuity transaction is significant. Variable annuity cases frequently involve questions about suitability, disclosure of risks, and compensation conflicts. An allegation that a broker moved funds into such a product without consent raises concerns about:
- Potential unauthorized trading in a client account;
- Possible failure to obtain informed customer authorization for product changes; and
- Whether the recommendation or transaction, if made, would have complied with suitability or best-interest standards.
For clarity, the currently reported customer dispute disclosure can be summarized as:
- Type of Disclosure: Customer Dispute – Closed, No Action / Denied
- Reporting Source: Broker/Employing Firm
- Firm Involved at Time of Activity: Equitable Advisors, LLC
- Allegation: Reinvestment of client funds into a variable annuity without customer consent
- Product Type: Variable annuity
- Alleged Damages: $5,000+
- Status: Denied (closed with no action, no payment)
- Status Date: November 6, 2025
Investors should understand that a “denied” complaint means the firm did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim and chose not to offer a settlement. However, the mere presence of a complaint is still a relevant data point when evaluating a broker’s overall risk profile and history of customer interactions.
To obtain a copy of Zachary Morrison’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade)
FINRA Rule 2010 requires associated persons to “observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade” in the conduct of their business. In the context of the complaint against Zachary Morrison, if a broker were to move a customer’s funds into a variable annuity without prior authorization or clear, documented consent, that conduct could be viewed as inconsistent with these high standards.
Allegedly reinvesting client assets into a complex, long-term annuity product without the client’s informed agreement may undermine the customer’s trust and confidence in the broker, and can be interpreted as a breach of the basic duty of honesty and fair dealing that Rule 2010 embodies. Even where a firm denies a complaint, these types of allegations are taken seriously by regulators and are frequently examined through the lens of Rule 2010.
FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability)
FINRA Rule 2111 (the “Suitability Rule”) requires that a broker have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommended transaction or investment strategy is suitable for a customer, based on the customer’s investment profile—including age, financial situation, investment objectives, risk tolerance, and time horizon.
In a situation where a client alleges that their funds were reinvested into a variable annuity without consent, several suitability issues may arise:
- Whether the variable annuity itself was suitable given the client’s profile;
- Whether any surrender charges, fees, or illiquidity associated with the annuity were fully explained; and
- Whether any exchange, switch, or reinvestment from an existing product into the new annuity provided a genuine benefit to the client rather than primarily increasing compensation for the broker or firm.
If a broker executes or arranges such a transaction without first discussing and documenting the recommendation with the customer, it becomes difficult to demonstrate compliance with Rule 2111—even if the firm later denies the complaint.
FINRA Rule 2330 (Members’ Responsibilities Regarding Deferred Variable Annuities)
FINRA Rule 2330 imposes specific obligations on firms and associated persons who make recommendations of deferred variable annuities, including requirements relating to suitability, disclosure, supervision, and documentation. Among other things, the rule emphasizes that brokers must:
- Consider the unique features, fees, surrender charges, and riders of the recommended annuity;
- Evaluate whether the customer’s existing product may already satisfy their objectives; and
- Ensure that any recommendation to purchase, exchange, or replace a variable annuity is suitable and in the customer’s best interest.
In the context of the complaint involving Mr. Morrison, the allegation that a variable annuity purchase or reinvestment occurred without client consent raises concerns under Rule 2330, because the rule presupposes that the customer has been adequately informed of the recommendation and its implications. If a transaction took place without clear consent, regulators and arbitrators may question whether the broker satisfied the rule’s requirements for disclosure, suitability analysis, and documentation, even where the firm ultimately concludes that the complaint lacks merit.
For over 45 years, Robert Wayne Pearce has helped investors recover losses caused by broker fraud, negligence, and unsuitable recommendations. His firm, The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., represents clients nationwide on a no-recovery, no-fee basis. Call (800) 732-2889 or email pearce@rwpearce.com for a free case review with an experienced securities attorney.