Our firm is investigating Moloney Securities Co., Inc. broker and investment adviser representative Matthew Joseph Franchina (CRD# 5987117) of Long Beach, California and Manchester, Missouri for potential suitability and negligence in connection with corporate bond investments.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
According to his publicly available FINRA BrokerCheck report, Matthew Joseph Franchina has been in the securities industry for more than a decade and is currently dually registered as a broker and investment adviser. He is registered with Moloney Securities Co., Inc. (CRD# 38535) as a General Securities Representative and with Moloney Securities Asset Management LLC (CRD# 282448) as an investment adviser representative, operating out of Manchester, Missouri with a branch office in Long Beach, California.
Over the course of his career, Franchina has been registered with the following firms:
- Moloney Securities Co., Inc. (Manchester, MO) – General Securities Representative since May 31, 2016
- Moloney Securities Asset Management LLC (Manchester, MO / Long Beach, CA) – Investment adviser representative since December 12, 2016
- Moloney Investment Advisory LLC – Investment adviser representative from May 2016 to December 2016
- Investment Advisors (CRD# 15708) – Investment adviser representative in Huntington Beach, California from June 2013 to June 2016
- Bankers Life Securities, Inc. – Registered representative in Huntington Beach, California in May 2016
- ProEquities, Inc. – Registered representative in Huntington Beach, California from September 2012 to May 2016
BrokerCheck also reports other business activities. Franchina is a co-owner of “Policy Engineer Insurance Solutions,” an insurance and annuity sales business in Seal Beach, California, and “Asset Engineer Investment Solutions,” a securities-related business based at the same address.
Matthew Joseph Franchina Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA BrokerCheck discloses one settled customer dispute involving Matthew Joseph Franchina. The disclosure concerns allegations of sales practice violations arising from corporate debt investments recommended while he was associated with Moloney Securities Co., Inc.
In September 2022, a customer filed a FINRA arbitration claim alleging suitability/negligence in connection with corporate debt investments. The customer reportedly sought $100,000 in damages. The case was filed with FINRA as Arbitration Case No. 22-01998. On August 10, 2023, the matter was reported as settled for $30,000, with no monetary contribution attributed to Franchina personally; the settlement amount was paid by the firm or another party. Franchina submitted a broker statement in which he refutes the allegations.
For context, the key disclosure details reported in BrokerCheck include:
- Type of disclosure: Customer dispute – settled
- Employing firm at time of events: Moloney Securities Co., Inc.
- Product type: Debt – corporate
- Allegations: Suitability/negligence regarding corporate debt securities
- Alleged damages: $100,000
- Date notice/process served: September 2, 2022
- Forum and case number: FINRA arbitration, Case No. 22-01998
- Disposition: Settled on August 10, 2023
- Settlement amount: $30,000
- Individual contribution amount: $0
- Broker’s position: Franchina states that he refutes the allegations
All registration, employment, and disclosure information summarized here is drawn from Franchina’s publicly available FINRA BrokerCheck report.
Investors who worked with Matthew Joseph Franchina at Moloney Securities Co., Inc. or Moloney Securities Asset Management LLC and believe they suffered losses in corporate bond or other fixed-income products should consider having their accounts reviewed by an experienced securities attorney. Claims involving alleged unsuitable investments and negligence in complex fixed-income strategies are often pursued through FINRA arbitration.
To obtain a copy of Matthew Joseph Franchina’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) requires brokers to have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommended transaction or investment strategy is suitable for the customer in light of that customer’s investment profile, including age, financial situation, risk tolerance, investment objectives, time horizon, liquidity needs, and experience. In disputes like the one involving Franchina, investors often argue that the broker failed to perform adequate due diligence on the corporate bonds, improperly concentrated the portfolio in a single asset class or issuer, or recommended positions that exposed the customer to undue credit and market risk. Concentrated bond positions, long maturities, or lower-rated issuers can magnify losses when interest rates rise or credit conditions deteriorate, and such characteristics may render the recommendation unsuitable for a conservative or income-oriented investor—especially if the portfolio also suffers from a lack of diversification.
FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) requires member firms and associated persons to conduct their business with high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade. Even when there is no separate regulatory action, alleged negligence, misrepresentations, omissions of risk, or failure to follow the Know Your Customer rule and other Know Your Client obligations can be framed as violations of Rule 2010. In many customer cases, investors contend that brokers breached these ethical standards by placing firm revenues or commissions ahead of the customer’s best interests, steering clients into higher-yielding but riskier bonds without candid disclosure of downside risks.
FINRA Rule 3110 (Supervision) obligates brokerage firms to establish and maintain a system of supervision, including written supervisory procedures and periodic branch inspections, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with securities laws and FINRA rules. In a case involving a broker’s allegedly unsuitable corporate bond recommendations, investors may assert that the firm failed to supervise the advisor’s recommendations, account concentrations, or correspondence, or that it ignored red flags such as large positions in a single issuer, repeated rollovers, or an aging investor being placed into long-duration or below-investment-grade bonds. When supervision is inadequate, both the broker and the firm may face liability in FINRA arbitration proceedings.
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 consultation.