Our firm is investigating Raymond James Financial Services broker and investment advisor Nicole Faith Narkus (CRD# 6187857) of Birmingham, Michigan for potential investment-related misconduct.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
According to publicly available records, including FINRA BrokerCheck, Nicole Faith Narkus has been in the securities industry since 2013.
She is currently registered as a General Securities Representative with Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. (CRD# 6694) and as an Investment Adviser Representative with Raymond James Financial Services Advisors, Inc. (CRD# 149018), working out of a branch office located at 34611 Woodward Avenue, Birmingham, Michigan 48009.
Her registration and employment history includes:
- Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. (Birmingham, MI) – General Securities Representative since March 31, 2022
- Raymond James Financial Services Advisors, Inc. (Birmingham, MI) – Investment Adviser Representative since April 5, 2022
- Edward Jones (Sterling Heights, MI / St. Louis, MO) – Registered Representative and Financial Advisor from August 2015 to February 2022
- Hantz Financial Services, Inc. (Clinton Township, MI) – Registered Representative from December 2013 to June 2015; Investment Adviser Representative from June 2014 to June 2015
BrokerCheck also lists outside business activities in which Ms. Narkus serves as owner and officer of Anchored in Faith Wealth Management and Nicole Faith Financial Services LLC in Birmingham, Michigan, both described as providing financial planning, investment management, and insurance-related services.
Nicole Faith Narkus Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA BrokerCheck discloses two customer dispute events involving Nicole Faith Narkus, both arising from her prior employment with Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Edward Jones).
These disputes include allegations related to the recommendation to sell indexed annuities—leading to penalties and tax consequences—and a separate complaint about delays in processing a retirement account for an estate. While one complaint resulted in a substantial settlement paid by the firm, the other was denied with no payment to the customer. Ms. Narkus has denied any wrongdoing in her BrokerCheck statements.
Summary of Reported Customer Disputes
- December 2021 indexed annuity sale – complaint received December 21, 2022 – $49,567.19 settlement
- Employing firm when activities occurred: Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.
- Product involved: Fixed indexed annuities
- Customer’s core allegation: The client alleges that Ms. Narkus, as their former Financial Advisor, recommended selling indexed annuities in December 2021, which created large surrender penalties and negative tax implications.
- Complaint details:
- Complaint was received on December 21, 2022 and reported as an oral complaint.
- The firm determined that potential damages exceeded $5,000, even though the customer did not specify an exact dollar amount.
- On March 2, 2023, Edward Jones resolved the matter via a monetary payment of $49,567.19, with no contribution reported from Ms. Narkus personally.
- Broker’s response: In her statement, Ms. Narkus asserts that she met with the client multiple times, conducted a financial planning process, discussed the pros and cons of the existing annuities versus alternative investments, and used her professional judgment to recommend a new strategy aligned with the client’s long-term goals. She notes that they discussed the risk of future market losses, which ultimately materialized in 2022.
- March 2021 estate processing complaint – denied with no compensation
- Employing firm when activities occurred: Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.
- Product type: Mutual fund holdings in a retirement account.
- Customer’s core allegation: The client criticized the estate-processing procedures for a retirement account with multiple beneficiaries, expressing frustration over delays and administrative requirements.
- Firm’s description: Edward Jones reported that the delays stemmed from its established estate-processing policy, which required all beneficiaries to complete paperwork before funds could be distributed. The firm stated that no trades or account activity occurred during this period and characterized the allegations as relating to administrative policy enforcement rather than sales practice misconduct.
- Outcome: The written complaint, received March 24, 2021, was denied on April 16, 2021, with no settlement or customer payment.
- Broker’s response: Ms. Narkus stated that after the firm’s investigation, the client’s claim was denied.
What These Disclosures May Mean for Investors
The annuity-related complaint suggests concerns about whether the recommendation to liquidate fixed indexed annuities properly accounted for surrender charges, tax treatment, and the client’s overall investment profile. These are typical issues in cases involving alleged unsuitable investment recommendations, especially when the decision to sell or exchange annuities leads to unexpected penalties and tax bills.
Investors who experienced similar recommendations to cash out or replace annuities, or whose estate accounts were handled in a way that delayed access to funds, may have potential claims for recovery depending on their specific facts, documentation, and the impact on their portfolios. Many such claims are resolved through FINRA arbitration rather than traditional court litigation.
To obtain a copy of Nicole Faith Narkus’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability)
FINRA Rule 2111, often called the Suitability Rule, requires a broker or associated person to have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommended transaction or investment strategy is suitable for the customer based on that customer’s investment profile, including age, financial situation, tax status, investment objectives, risk tolerance, time horizon, liquidity needs, and other relevant factors.
In the annuity complaint involving the December 2021 recommendation to sell fixed indexed annuities, arbitrators or regulators evaluating potential liability would ask:
- Did Ms. Narkus perform reasonable due diligence on the existing annuities, including surrender charges, income riders, and tax consequences, before recommending liquidation?
- Did she reasonably conclude that the proposed new investment strategy was suitable for this particular client in light of their goals, risk tolerance, tax status, and income needs?
- Were the resulting penalties and tax liabilities adequately explained and weighed against any anticipated benefits of the new investments?
If a broker recommends a strategy that triggers significant surrender charges and tax consequences without a compelling, well-documented rationale tied to the client’s profile, decision-makers may find that FINRA Rule 2111 was violated, and the firm can be held responsible for the investor’s losses.
FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade)
FINRA Rule 2010 requires member firms and associated persons, “in the conduct of [their] business, [to] observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.”
Rule 2010 often operates as a “catch-all” provision that can be implicated whenever a broker’s conduct—whether in recommendations, handling of estate accounts, or communications with clients—falls short of fair dealing and good faith. In the context of the disclosures involving Ms. Narkus, decision-makers may consider whether:
- The handling of estate processing was transparent, timely, and consistent with a duty to treat beneficiaries fairly; and
- The explanation of surrender charges, tax implications, and investment risk in the annuity case met the high ethical standards required under this rule.
Even if a firm frames a dispute as a “procedural” or “administrative” issue, extended delays or poor communication that materially harm a customer’s ability to access funds or make informed decisions can give rise to Rule 2010 concerns. (Smarsh)
FINRA Rule 2210 (Communications with the Public)
FINRA Rule 2210 governs broker-dealer communications with the public, requiring that all communications be fair and balanced, provide a sound basis for evaluating investments or services, and avoid omitting material facts that would make the message misleading.
While the BrokerCheck report does not quote specific marketing materials, the annuity complaint raises issues about whether the client fully understood penalties, tax implications, and risks associated with liquidating existing annuities and adopting a new investment strategy. If a broker’s oral explanations, written materials, or account-opening documents downplay costs, overstate benefits, or fail to disclose important tax and surrender-charge information, the communication may be deemed unfair or misleading and thus inconsistent with Rule 2210’s standards.
In arbitration, investor counsel often connects these communication failures to both Rule 2210 and the core suitability obligations under Rule 2111, arguing that the investor could not provide informed consent to the recommended strategy without clear, balanced disclosure.
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.