Our firm is investigating NYLIFE Securities LLC broker and investment adviser Jason Lee Hooz (CRD# 1138455) of Cupertino, California for potential investment-related misconduct involving a variable annuity transaction.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
Jason Lee Hooz has been in the financial services industry for decades, primarily affiliated with New York Life–related entities. According to his FINRA BrokerCheck report, Mr. Hooz has been registered with NYLIFE Securities LLC since July 1983 and with Eagle Strategies LLC as an investment adviser representative since March 2003. Both registrations currently list a branch office at 1601 S De Anza Blvd, Suite 255, Cupertino, California 95014.
In addition, BrokerCheck shows that Mr. Hooz has been employed as an insurance agent with New York Life Insurance Company since 1979. Over the course of his career, he has obtained multiple securities licenses, including examinations such as the Series 6, Series 7, Series 22, Series 63, and the Securities Industry Essentials (SIE) exam, and he has reported the professional designation of Chartered Financial Consultant (ChFC).
Mr. Hooz is currently approved and licensed to conduct securities business through FINRA and is registered as an agent in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, which indicates a nationwide customer base served through NYLIFE Securities LLC and Eagle Strategies LLC.
Jason Lee Hooz Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
BrokerCheck discloses one customer dispute involving Jason Lee Hooz that has been reported as settled. As with all FINRA disclosures, the underlying allegations are not findings of fact; they are claims made by a customer and may have been resolved without any admission of wrongdoing by Mr. Hooz.
2025 Variable Annuity Complaint (Settled)
According to the disclosure, a customer of NYLIFE Securities LLC filed a written complaint on April 10, 2025. The customer alleged that:
- He requested that his funds in an existing variable annuity be reallocated to the money market option.
- Instead of moving the existing contract as requested, the funds were allegedly transferred into a new variable annuity in April 2025.
- As a result of this transaction, the customer claimed to have incurred approximately $12,000 in losses.
The product at issue is identified as a variable annuity, a complex, long-term investment often associated with significant fees, surrender charges, and market risk.
On or about May 1, 2025, the dispute was reported as settled for $11,661.65, with the settlement paid by the firm. BrokerCheck indicates that Mr. Hooz did not personally contribute to the settlement amount (individual contribution reported as $0.00).
Summary of FINRA Disclosure History
Based on the current BrokerCheck report:
- Customer Disputes:
- 1 customer dispute involving a variable annuity transaction in 2025
- Alleged misleading handling of the client’s request to move existing annuity funds to a money market option
- Reported customer loss: $12,000
- Settlement: $11,661.65 (paid by NYLIFE Securities LLC; no individual contribution by Mr. Hooz)
- Regulatory Events:
- No regulatory actions are disclosed.
- Terminations, Criminal, or Bankruptcy Disclosures:
- No employment terminations, criminal events, or bankruptcy disclosures are reported on the current BrokerCheck report.
Investors should understand that a settlement does not necessarily mean that FINRA or any court found Mr. Hooz liable for fraud or other violations; firms often choose to settle customer complaints for business reasons, including litigation cost and risk management.
To obtain a copy of Jason Lee Hooz’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) is central to most customer disputes involving allegedly inappropriate recommendations or exchanges of securities and investment strategies. The rule requires that, when a broker recommends a transaction or investment strategy involving a security, the broker must have a reasonable basis to believe the recommendation is suitable for the customer based on the client’s age, financial situation, investment experience, risk tolerance, time horizon, and other profile information. In the complaint against Jason Lee Hooz, the customer claims he asked to move existing variable annuity funds into a money market option—a lower-risk, more conservative allocation—but instead was placed into a new variable annuity product. If an investor truly sought preservation of capital or reduced risk, yet was recommended a new annuity with market exposure, fees, or surrender charges inconsistent with those goals, arbitrators could view that as potentially unsuitable under Rule 2111’s customer-specific suitability standard.
FINRA Rule 2330 (Members’ Responsibilities Regarding Deferred Variable Annuities) provides additional protections specifically for recommendations to purchase, exchange, or modify deferred variable annuities. Among other things, the rule requires firms and associated persons to consider the customer’s financial status, investment objectives, and time horizon; to assess whether the customer will incur surrender charges, higher fees, or loss of existing benefits; and to document why a recommended exchange or new annuity is appropriate compared to the customer’s current contract. Where a client alleges, as here, that he requested a simple reallocation to a money market option but was instead moved into a new variable annuity that later produced losses, arbitrators may examine whether the recommending broker and firm complied with Rule 2330’s requirements to evaluate and document the pros and cons of the new contract versus leaving funds where they were.
FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Just and Equitable Principles of Trade) is a broad ethical rule that applies to all securities professionals. Even when a transaction does not involve an outright fraud charge, conduct that misleads a customer, disregards instructions, or reflects a pattern of unfair dealing can be charged as a violation of Rule 2010. In the context of the 2025 complaint, if the fact-finder concluded that the customer clearly requested a shift to a money market allocation but instead was placed into a different product without full, fair disclosure of the risks and costs, that could be viewed as inconsistent with the high standards of commercial honor required by Rule 2010—even apart from any narrower suitability or variable annuity-specific rules.
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.