Asked by Brandon Dagley on Jun 24, 2024
Verified
The following is an agreed statement of facts in a court case, Roma v. Carthage and Troy Stock Brokerage Corporation:
Mrs. Roma: I'm glad to meet you Mr. Carthage. My daughter has told me all about you and the wonderful way you have managed her stock portfolio. It is a blessing for her not to have to worry about such decisions, she's just so busy; she's starting out as a network engineer, you know. I'm so proud of her. She's the first in the family to graduate from college. If only my dear Caesar had lived to see that!
Mr. Carthage: I'm very sorry to hear of your loss Mrs. Roma, I'm sure Mr. Roma would have been very proud. And thank you for your compliment to me, as well. I understand from your daughter you would like me to undertake some work on your finances.
Mrs. Roma: That is right. Since my dear husband died, I have not known what to do, as he took care of the family finances. I have $250,000 to invest from his life insurance proceeds, and I'm really not well enough myself anymore to get out often.
Mr. Carthage: That's fine Mrs. Roma, not to worry. I'll set up your account as discretionary and do the trades for you. You'll of course get confirmation slips in the mail, so you needn't come here to the office. If there is anything in particular you want me to buy or sell, of course I'll follow your instructions to the letter.
Mrs. Roma: Thank you very much. If you can do for me what you've been doing for my daughter, I'd be very pleased. She told me her $10,000 had become $11,000 in the space of three months, thanks to you.
Mr. Carthage: Well, we try pretty hard to follow the right trends here at Troy. So that you don't think that you are out there on your own, I'll set up a portfolio that is a carbon copy of your daughter's.
Mrs. Roma paid over her funds, but never told her daughter that their portfolios were identical. Confirmation slips were duly delivered after trades, as were monthly statements, and Mrs. Roma filed them in a folder, not fully understanding them. She would ask about her daughter's portfolio finances now and again, and her daughter provided generally vague but upbeat comments. Unknown to Mrs. Roma, market downturns were forcing the two portfolios steadily down in value and her daughter, embarrassed at what she thought were solely her own losses, was covering up the truth of her own financial position.
When the truth came to light, Mrs. Roma held 10,000 shares in Mega.com at $1.50 per share, 1,000 shares of Antarctic Oilfield Exploration Ltd at $0.25 per share, and 1,000 shares of a major Canadian bank at $50 per share, for a portfolio value $65,250. The shares were essentially the same as those originally purchased at the time of account opening. Mrs. Roma sued both Mr. Carthage and the Troy stockbrokerage firm for her losses. Discuss, drawing conclusions and making assumptions as required.
Stock Portfolio
A collection of stocks owned by an individual or entity, representing their investments in the equity market.
Life Insurance Proceeds
The money paid out by an insurance company to the beneficiaries of a life insurance policy upon the policyholder's death.
Market Downturns
Periods when the market experiences a decline in prices, often due to economic contractions or negative investor sentiment.
- Recognize the criticality of accurate, comprehensive, and straightforward disclosure in securities regulatory practices.
- Differentiate among different financial mediators and their respective regulatory duties.
Verified Answer
SD
Sheik DabohJun 26, 2024
Final Answer :
Based on the agreed statement of facts in the court case Roma v. Carthage and Troy Stock Brokerage Corporation, it is clear that Mrs. Roma entrusted Mr. Carthage with the management of her finances following the death of her husband. Mr. Carthage assured Mrs. Roma that he would handle her investments with care and set up her account as discretionary, meaning he had the authority to make trades on her behalf without seeking her approval for each transaction.
Mrs. Roma, who was not well enough to manage her finances herself, relied on Mr. Carthage to make sound investment decisions. She trusted him to replicate the successful portfolio management he had provided for her daughter. However, it is evident that Mr. Carthage did not fulfill his duty to act in Mrs. Roma's best interests.
Instead of creating a diversified and prudent investment portfolio for Mrs. Roma, Mr. Carthage simply replicated her daughter's portfolio without her knowledge. This lack of diversification and risk management led to significant losses in Mrs. Roma's portfolio, as evidenced by the value of her holdings being substantially lower than the initial investment of $250,000.
Furthermore, Mr. Carthage failed to disclose the true state of Mrs. Roma's investments, as he continued to send confirmation slips and monthly statements without alerting her to the declining value of her portfolio. This lack of transparency and communication is a clear breach of Mr. Carthage's fiduciary duty to act in Mrs. Roma's best interests.
As a result of Mr. Carthage's negligence and misconduct, Mrs. Roma suffered substantial financial losses. It is reasonable for Mrs. Roma to sue both Mr. Carthage and the Troy stockbrokerage firm for their role in her financial mismanagement. The firm may also be held liable for Mr. Carthage's actions, as they have a responsibility to supervise and ensure the ethical conduct of their employees.
In conclusion, based on the facts presented, it is evident that Mrs. Roma has a strong case against Mr. Carthage and the Troy stockbrokerage firm for their negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and failure to act in her best interests. It is reasonable to assume that Mrs. Roma should be entitled to compensation for her losses and damages resulting from their misconduct.
Mrs. Roma, who was not well enough to manage her finances herself, relied on Mr. Carthage to make sound investment decisions. She trusted him to replicate the successful portfolio management he had provided for her daughter. However, it is evident that Mr. Carthage did not fulfill his duty to act in Mrs. Roma's best interests.
Instead of creating a diversified and prudent investment portfolio for Mrs. Roma, Mr. Carthage simply replicated her daughter's portfolio without her knowledge. This lack of diversification and risk management led to significant losses in Mrs. Roma's portfolio, as evidenced by the value of her holdings being substantially lower than the initial investment of $250,000.
Furthermore, Mr. Carthage failed to disclose the true state of Mrs. Roma's investments, as he continued to send confirmation slips and monthly statements without alerting her to the declining value of her portfolio. This lack of transparency and communication is a clear breach of Mr. Carthage's fiduciary duty to act in Mrs. Roma's best interests.
As a result of Mr. Carthage's negligence and misconduct, Mrs. Roma suffered substantial financial losses. It is reasonable for Mrs. Roma to sue both Mr. Carthage and the Troy stockbrokerage firm for their role in her financial mismanagement. The firm may also be held liable for Mr. Carthage's actions, as they have a responsibility to supervise and ensure the ethical conduct of their employees.
In conclusion, based on the facts presented, it is evident that Mrs. Roma has a strong case against Mr. Carthage and the Troy stockbrokerage firm for their negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and failure to act in her best interests. It is reasonable to assume that Mrs. Roma should be entitled to compensation for her losses and damages resulting from their misconduct.
Learning Objectives
- Recognize the criticality of accurate, comprehensive, and straightforward disclosure in securities regulatory practices.
- Differentiate among different financial mediators and their respective regulatory duties.