Top Ten Worst Financial Advisor Companies in 2025

How This “Top Ten” Was Framed

This list emphasizes firms that are frequently named in publicly available complaint data and regulatory disclosures. The goal of this list is to provide plain-English context for investors who are trying to understand why problems recur at certain organizations and what next steps may look like if a financial advisor caused losses.

What Typically Lands a Firm on Lists Like This

• Repeated appearance in public complaints, enforcement actions, or disclosure databases available to consumers
• A business model or sheer size that, if not carefully supervised, can increase the risk that a financial advisor’s conduct harms clients
• Clear, real-world examples—where available—illustrating how supervision or product incentives may contribute to losses

These factors do not label every professional at a firm. They point to patterns that—combined with advisor-level misconduct—can lead to significant investor harm.

The Top Ten Firms (Firm-by-Firm Guides)

Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. (RJFS)

Raymond James operates multiple broker-dealer subsidiaries and a large nationwide advisor network. The firm’s scale and product breadth mean supervision must work consistently across thousands of accounts to prevent harm.

• Raymond James reports thousands of financial advisors and very large client assets under administration.
• When supervision breaks down—such as in fee-based account oversight or unsuitable recommendations—investors often pursue compensation from the firm through arbitration.

J.P. Morgan (Including J.P. Morgan Securities)

J.P. Morgan is one of the country’s largest financial institutions and includes a substantial broker-dealer and advisory footprint. Large, complex organizations can experience pockets of advisor-level misconduct that harm clients if branch-level supervision falters.

• The firm serves retail and high-net-worth clients across the U.S. and internationally.
• Common dispute themes include unsuitable strategies and conflicts tied to product lineups or compensation structures.

Stifel, Nicolaus & Company

Stifel is a full-service brokerage and investment bank that offers fixed-income, insurance, and advisory products. A wide product shelf can create conflicts if a financial advisor steers clients toward higher-compensation options.

• Case reviews at Stifel often examine bond or annuity recommendations, high-turnover trading, or misrepresentations around complex products.
• Effective, documented supervision is critical when a customer’s portfolio changes meaningfully in risk or cost.

CUSO Financial Services (CFS)

CUSO Financial Services partners with credit unions and banks to deliver investments through local branches. That channel can blur the line between “banking” and “investing,” increasing the need for clear explanations of risk and cost by the financial advisor.

• CFS was founded in the 1990s and focuses on turnkey investment programs for credit unions.
• Disputes frequently center on annuities and packaged products and whether branch supervision identified red flags.

TD Ameritrade, Inc.

TD Ameritrade is a longtime online brokerage with advisory arms and a mass-market footprint. Retail platforms can see high volumes of complaints when representatives recommend or facilitate strategies that do not fit a customer’s actual risk tolerance.

• The firm has been a major name in online trading and later became part of a larger enterprise structure.
• Allegations often involve unsuitable options strategies or margin use tied to representative recommendations or guidance.

PFS Investments (Primerica Financial Services)

PFS Investments is associated with Primerica and appears in public records with firm-level disclosures. Reported sanctions have included concerns about oversight of outside business activities.

• Public summaries reference multiple firm disclosures and findings related to supervision duties.
• Investors who suffered losses commonly question whether the advisor complied with sales-practice rules and conflict-management requirements, particularly with annuities and packaged products.

CFD Investments

CFD Investments is an independent broker-dealer with offices across multiple states and a broad product shelf that includes mutual funds, annuities, and alternative investments. Independent models require particularly strong firm-level supervision because many financial advisors operate out of small offices.

• The company was founded in 1990 and offers financial planning, retirement, and alternative-investment products.
• Disputes often involve unsuitable alternatives or high-commission annuities placed in long-term portfolios.

MetLife Securities, Inc.

MetLife Securities is a broker-dealer affiliate of MetLife with nationwide registration. Insurance-brokerage hybrids can create conflicts if advisors favor proprietary or commission-rich products over client-appropriate options.

• The firm has historically served a wide range of households and business owners across the United States.
• Reviews commonly focus on whether recommendations matched client needs and whether supervisory systems reasonably prevented rule violations.

RBC Capital Markets, LLC

RBC Capital Markets is a large broker-dealer and registered investment adviser with global operations. Complex structures demand strong controls so clients are not exposed to in-house conflicts or aggressive trading patterns.

• The firm employs thousands of professionals in many countries and reports significant annual revenue.
• Disputes often cite unsuitable structured products, concentration risk, or supervisory gaps at the branch level.

Avantax Investment Services

Avantax Investment Services is among the larger independent broker-dealers focused on tax-aware planning. Rapid growth via acquisitions requires policies that keep pace so advisors provide accurate, conflict-free advice.

• Avantax works with thousands of professionals and tens of billions in client assets nationwide.
• Allegations frequently involve complex tax-advantaged products, annuities, and alternative investments that may not match a client’s objectives.

What “Worst” Really Means for Harmed Investors

Labels like “The Top Ten Worst Financial Advisor Companies in America” can oversimplify a complex reality. The central issue in most cases is whether a financial advisor followed industry rules and whether the firm’s supervisory system worked as it should. When those safeguards fail, investors can seek compensation from the firm.

Red Flags Frequently Seen in Dispute Files

• Unsuitable recommendations where risk, liquidity, or concentration diverges from the client’s situation
• Misrepresentations or omissions about fees, product risks, or conflicts
• Unauthorized trading or churning designed to generate commissions
• Weak branch-level supervision that allowed problems to persist

If these issues sound familiar, an arbitration claim can recover losses from the responsible firm. Case files typically include account statements, communications, product documents, and supervisory records that show what went wrong and why the firm must pay.

How Meyer Wilson Werning Helps Investors Recover Losses From These Companies

Meyer Wilson Werning has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for clients nationwide through arbitration and settlements against brokerage firms and investment advisers. Our firm analyzes what the financial advisor recommended, how the company supervised the account, and the most effective path to recovery. If you suffered significant losses due to advisor misconduct at any of the firms above (or another firm), contact us to discuss options for pursuing compensation.

Frequently Asked Questions