Our firm is investigating Principal Securities, Inc. financial advisor and registered representative Grace Ferrer Romasanta (CRD# 1765890) of San Jose, California, for potential investment-related misconduct arising from a denied customer complaint involving a variable annuity’s liquidity and surrender charges.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
Grace Ferrer Romasanta has spent her securities and insurance career with affiliates of Principal:
- Since May 1995, she has been associated with Principal’s broker-dealer platform, originally through Princor Financial Services Corporation and later through Principal Securities, Inc., the firm’s current broker-dealer entity.
- She has been registered with Principal Securities, Inc. (CRD# 1137) since October 5, 1995, and currently works from a branch office located at 101 Metro Dr., Suite 375, San Jose, California 95110.
- In addition to her broker-dealer role, Romasanta has long been involved on the insurance side of the business. She has been listed as an insurance agent with Principal Life Insurance since July 1998 in San Jose, California.
- She is licensed as an agent in several states and territories, including California, Missouri, Nevada, and Washington, and has passed the Series 6, Series 63, and Securities Industry Essentials (SIE) examinations.
This career history reflects a long-tenured relationship with Principal’s family of companies, primarily focused on investment company products, variable contracts, and related insurance business.
Grace Ferrer Romasanta Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
According to her FINRA BrokerCheck report, Grace Ferrer Romasanta has one customer dispute disclosure on her record. That matter involved allegations concerning a variable annuity, and it was ultimately denied with no payment to the customer.
Although the firm rejected the claim, and no finding of wrongdoing has been made against Romasanta, the complaint itself provides important insight into the types of issues that can arise with complex products like variable annuities.
Summary of the 2025 Customer Dispute
- Type of disclosure: Customer dispute – closed, denied
- Reporting source: Broker (through her firm, Principal Securities, Inc.)
- Employing firm at time of events: Principal Securities, Inc.
- Product involved: Variable annuity
- Customer allegations:
- The clients alleged that Romasanta misrepresented the liquidity of the variable annuity.
- They further claimed she misrepresented the surrender penalties, suggesting they were not properly disclosed or were downplayed at the time of sale.
- Alleged damages: $5,905.44, described as the amount of surrender charges on the variable annuity as of October 29, 2025.
- Date complaint received by the firm: October 17, 2025
- Status of the complaint:
- The firm investigated and denied the complaint.
- BrokerCheck indicates the complaint is “Denied” with a status date of October 29, 2025, and “no action” taken against the broker.
- Broker/firm statement:
- Principal Securities reported that it investigated the clients’ allegations and “found them to be without merit.”
What This Means for Investors
Variable annuities often include:
- Multi-year surrender charge schedules
- Limitations on liquidity, such as penalties for withdrawing more than a certain percentage each year
- Complex fee structures that can significantly impact returns if funds are accessed early
The complaint against Romasanta centers on whether these features—especially liquidity constraints and surrender charges—were accurately and completely disclosed at the time of recommendation. Even though Principal Securities denied the claim, the existence of the dispute highlights the recurring risk that investors may not fully understand:
- How long their money may be locked up
- What it costs to exit the product before the end of the surrender period
- How those costs compare to other, potentially more liquid investment options
Investors who believe a broker failed to reasonably explain these features, or recommended a variable annuity that did not match their time horizon or liquidity needs, may have a claim for negligent misrepresentation, unsuitability, or breach of fiduciary duties, depending on the relationship and applicable law.
In conclusion, investors should treat the disclosure on Grace Ferrer Romasanta’s record as an indication that at least one set of clients felt they were not fully informed about the liquidity and surrender-charge implications of their variable annuity investment. While the firm denies any wrongdoing and no compensation was paid, other investors who experienced similar issues may still have viable claims, depending on their circumstances and documentation.
To obtain a copy of Grace Ferrer Romasanta’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
One of the primary rules is FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability). This rule requires brokers to have a reasonable basis to believe a recommended transaction or investment strategy is suitable for the customer, based on information about the customer’s investment profile—such as age, financial situation, investment objectives, time horizon, risk tolerance, and liquidity needs. When a broker recommends a variable annuity, Rule 2111 expects the broker to:
- Understand the product’s surrender schedule, liquidity restrictions, and fees, and
- Explain those features to the client in a way that allows them to make an informed decision.
In the Romasanta dispute, the clients alleged that the liquidity and surrender penalties of the variable annuity were misrepresented. If a decision-maker were to find that a customer was not adequately informed about these issues—or that the product was inconsistent with the client’s need for access to funds—that could support a finding that the recommendation violated Rule 2111’s suitability standard, even though Principal Securities maintains that the complaint was not meritorious.
Another key rule in this context is FINRA Rule 2330 (Members’ Responsibilities Regarding Deferred Variable Annuities). Rule 2330 imposes specific obligations on firms and associated persons when recommending or exchanging deferred variable annuities, including:
- Conducting a reasonably thorough, customer-specific suitability analysis before making a recommendation,
- Providing fair and balanced disclosure of material features such as surrender charges, tax penalties, and market risk,
- Documenting the basis for the recommendation, and
- Having supervisory procedures to review and approve variable annuity transactions.
Where a customer claims that the broker downplayed or misrepresented the liquidity limitations and surrender charges, regulators and arbitration panels often look to whether the firm and broker complied with Rule 2330’s heightened suitability and disclosure requirements. If it were shown that a variable annuity was sold without proper explanation of its multi-year surrender period or the true cost of early liquidation, that could be evidence of a Rule 2330 violation, particularly if the investor reasonably needed greater liquidity.
Finally, the allegations can be viewed through the lens of FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade). Rule 2010 is a broad, catch-all provision requiring members and associated persons to “observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.” Even when a specific rule—such as Rules 2111 or 2330—might not be clearly violated, conduct that is misleading, unfair, or inconsistent with honest dealings can still be sanctioned under Rule 2010.
In the context of the Romasanta complaint, if a fact-finder were ever to conclude that liquidity and surrender penalties were mischaracterized or materially downplayed, that conduct could be framed as falling short of the ethical standards embodied in Rule 2010. Conversely, if the evidence confirmed that the customers received full and accurate disclosures and that the product was suitable given their profiles, Rule 2010 would likely be deemed satisfied, which is consistent with Principal Securities’ position that the complaint deserved denial.
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.