David Fagenson Investigation

Who is David Fagenson? David Fagenson Investigation

Industry regulator FINRA has suspended a former UBS broker for alleged excessive trading in elderly client accounts.

According to a letter of acceptance, waiver, and consent published by FINRA, David Fagenson allegedly “engaged in quantitatively unsuitable trading” in the accounts of three clients, who ranged in age from their 70s to 95 years old.”

As reported in Financial Advisor IQ by Alex Padalka, Fagenson’s trading allegedly resulted in an annualized turnover rate of 16.07 and an annualized cost-to-equity ratio of 31.75% for one client. FINRA generally considers trading excessive when the turnover rate is more than six or a cost-to-equity ratio is more than 20%, according to FINRA’s letter of consent.

The same client’s account “allegedly generated over $260,000 in commissions and markups for Fagenson and UBS and a loss of $283,314 for the client,” FINRA says. In another two accounts that were examined, “Fagenson’s trading allegedly resulted in more than $210,000 in commissions and markups for him and the firm and a loss of $239,000 for the client,” according to the FINRA letter of consent.

“Fagenson consented to an eight-month suspension without admitting or denying FINRA’s findings,” the regulator says. “FINRA opted against levying any monetary sanctions against Fagenson in light of his filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy this March,” according to the letter of consent.

According to Fagenson’s BrokerCheck report, he began his career as a broker in 1987 and joined UBS in 2010. Then, he left UBS in 2016 and joined Newbridge Securities Corporation that same year. UBS discharged Fagenson in September 2016.  According to his BrokerCheck report, “The Financial Advisor [Fagenson] was discharged after a review found that while on heightened supervision, he violated firm policy by exercising time and price discretion, texting with clients and engaging in short term trading of preferred shares.”

Roughly two months after his discharge from UBS, Fagenson joined Newbridge Securities. David Fagenson has worked at multiple firms over the years before UBS, including MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED (WEST PALM BEACH, FL); MORGAN STANLEY DW INC. (PURCHASE, NY); PAINE WEBBER INCORPORATED (WEEHAWKEN, NJ); PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES INCORPORATED (NEW YORK, NY); and KIDDER, PEABODY & CO. INCORPORATED (NEW YORK, NY).

FINRA maintains a database of investor complaints and disciplinary and employment history for registered representatives and publishes some of this information on its BrokerCheck website, www.brokercheck.finra.org. According to David Fagenson’s BrokerCheck report, he has 16 disclosure events.

The following disclosures were reported:

  • Regulatory Events: 2
  • Criminal: 1 
  • Customer Disputes: 11
  • Terminations: 1
  • Financial Events: 1

FREE Consultation | 585-310-5140

Based on our experience, we believe that there are more investors who have been the victim of broker misconduct or investment fraud. If you’ve worked with or invested with David Fagenson, you should contact Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane immediately. Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane is currently investigating David Fagenson’s practices, as well as the products he recommended to individual investors. Concerns about possible broker misconduct and investment fraud are serious, and we are committed to fighting on behalf of investors.

If you believe you were a victim of investment fraud or broker misconduct, it is imperative to take action. Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane has represented thousands of victims, and we remain committed to fighting on behalf of investors. Contact Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane today by filling out a Contact Form on our website or by calling 585-310-5140 to schedule a FREE Case Evaluation.

Peiffer Wolf (1297 Posts)


In our legal system, every person is innocent until and unless found guilty by a court of law or a tribunal. Whenever we reference “allegations” or charges that are “alleged,” such allegations or charges have not been proven, and are merely accusations, not findings of fault, as of the date of the blog. We do not have, nor do we undertake, a duty to continue to monitor or follow cases about which we report, and/or to publish subsequent blogs regarding various developments that may occur in such cases. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research regarding any such cases and any developments that may or may not have occurred in such cases.