Arthur Roy McPherson (CRD# 2245364) is a financial advisor and stockbroker currently registered with World Equity Group, Inc. and Prostatis Financial Advisors Group in Melbourne, Florida, and is the subject of multiple customer disputes alleging negligent market-timing and an unauthorized transfer of client funds.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
According to his FINRA BrokerCheck report, Arthur Roy McPherson has been in the securities industry since the early 1990s and is currently dually registered as both a broker and investment adviser representative. He is presently associated with:
- Prostatis Financial Advisors Group (CRD# 132662) – Investment Adviser Representative, approved since February 25, 2019, with a branch office located at 3159 Alzante Circle, Unit 101, Melbourne, Florida 32940.
- World Equity Group, Inc. (CRD# 29087) – General Securities Representative, approved since July 1, 2019, also working out of the Melbourne, Florida branch office.
McPherson has previously been registered with a number of other broker-dealers and advisory firms, including: f
- Triumph Wealth Advisors, Inc. (IA) in Melbourne, FL (08/2015 – 05/2024)
- Taylor Capital Management Inc. (B) in Melbourne, FL (11/2014 – 07/2019)
- Sterne Agee Asset Management, Inc. (IA) in Melbourne, FL (03/2014 – 11/2014)
- Sterne Agee Financial Services, Inc. (B) in Melbourne, FL (04/2012 – 11/2014)
- TransAm Securities, Inc. (B) in Melbourne, FL (06/2006 – 04/2012)
- OneAmerica Securities, Inc. (B) in Indianapolis, IN (12/2000 – 06/2006)
- American United Life Insurance Company (B) in Indianapolis, IN (12/2000 – 12/2001)
- TransAm Securities, Inc. (B) in Los Angeles, CA (11/1998 – 01/2001)
- CFG Securities Corp. (B) in Longwood, FL (02/1993 – 11/1998)
- F.N. Wolf & Co., Inc. (B) (09/1992 – 12/1992)
In addition to his brokerage and advisory roles, McPherson has reported other business activities, including serving as President/Agent of McPherson Financial Group, LLC and various investment-related and non-investment-related positions.
Arthur Roy McPherson Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA BrokerCheck discloses that Arthur Roy McPherson has been involved in at least two customer disputes, including one settled complaint and one pending FINRA arbitration. These matters involve allegations of an unauthorized wire transfer and a negligent market-timing strategy during the COVID-19 market volatility.
2025 Pending FINRA Arbitration Alleging Negligent Market Timing
A pending customer arbitration has been filed with FINRA (Docket No. 25-01040) naming McPherson as a respondent. According to the disclosure, claimants associated with Prostatis Financial Advisors Group allege that:
- McPherson employed a negligent market-timing strategy in their accounts.
- In March 2020, at the bottom of the “COVID crash,” he allegedly liquidated their investment portfolio, removing them from the market.
- He then allegedly re-entered the market only after it had already rallied and recovered, causing the claimants to miss a substantial portion of the rebound.
- The claimants assert that if the portfolio had simply been maintained rather than timed, they would be “several hundred thousand dollars better off” today.
- The claim seeks approximately $250,000 in damages, and is categorized as involving “No Product” (i.e., the allegations focus on strategy and timing rather than a single specific product).
- The arbitration was served on or about June 2, 2025, and remains pending. World Equity Group, Inc. was initially named but later dismissed from the case on August 1, 2025, after the claimant determined the client was not a World Equity Group client.
The allegations, if proven, are consistent with claims that a broker or advisor recommended an unsuitable strategy that was not aligned with the clients’ objectives or risk tolerance, particularly during extreme market volatility.
2015 Customer Complaint Over Unauthorized Wire Transfer (Settled)
BrokerCheck also reports a settled customer dispute dating back to 2015 involving Triumph Wealth Advisors, Inc. and TCM Securities. In that matter, the customer alleged that:
- His August 2015 account statement reflected a wire transfer of $25,500 plus a $15 transfer fee on or about August 15, 2015, which he claimed he did not authorize.
- The complaint was memorialized in a written communication dated November 11, 2015, and was reported to the firm on December 3, 2015.
- The dispute was resolved by a settlement payment of $25,500, with McPherson listed as contributing the full settlement amount.
In his BrokerCheck “Broker Statement,” McPherson contends that the client was a victim of identity fraud, that funds were wired to a third party without authorization, and that once the error was discovered, the client’s account was promptly reimbursed. f4bf05be-501f-4780-983a-5b67383…
Summary of FINRA-Reported Disclosure Events
- Customer dispute – pending FINRA arbitration (2025):
- Allegations: Negligent market-timing strategy during the March 2020 COVID-19 market crash; liquidation at the bottom and repurchase after the market rallied.
- Damages sought: $250,000.
- Status: Pending before FINRA Dispute Resolution (Case No. 25-01040).
- Product type: No Product (strategy-based claim).
- Customer dispute – settled complaint (2015):
- Allegations: Unauthorized wire transfer of $25,500 plus fee to a third party.
- Damages alleged: $25,500.
- Settlement: $25,500 reportedly contributed by McPherson.
- Status: Settled; categorized as “No Product.”
Investors should understand that a pending arbitration consists of unproven allegations, which may ultimately be dismissed, withdrawn, or resolved without any finding of wrongdoing. Nonetheless, multiple customer disputes—especially those involving alleged unauthorized transfers and substantial strategy-related losses—are common red flags that warrant further review by investors and counsel.
In light of these disclosures, investors who worked with McPherson and believe they suffered losses due to unsuitable strategies, negligent market timing, or inadequate risk management should consult with an experienced securities attorney about their potential recovery options.
To obtain a copy of Arthur Roy McPherson’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
FINRA Rule 2111—often called the “Suitability” rule—requires a broker to have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommendation is suitable for the customer based on that customer’s investment profile, including factors such as age, financial situation, tax status, investment objectives, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and time horizon. In the context of the pending 2025 arbitration against McPherson, investors may argue that:
- A highly aggressive market-timing strategy—liquidating a portfolio at the depths of the March 2020 COVID-19 market crash and re-entering only after a substantial recovery—was unsuitable given the clients’ goals, risk tolerance, or need for long-term growth and capital preservation.
- The decision to exit and re-enter the market in this manner was not based on a sound, well-researched strategy but instead exposed clients to the risk of missing a major market rebound, which is precisely what the claimants allege occurred.
- If the accounts were positioned for long-term investment rather than short-term speculative timing, an abrupt liquidation and delayed re-entry could be inconsistent with customer-specific suitability and reasonable-basis suitability standards.
Under Rule 2111, arbitrators often consider whether the advisor explained the risks of market-timing, whether the clients understood and accepted those risks, and whether the strategy aligned with their stated objectives. When investors can show that their advisor recommended speculative timing strategies without adequate explanation or documentation, suitability claims under Rule 2111 may be viable.
FINRA Rule 2010 requires all members and associated persons to “observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.” This broad rule is often cited in combination with more specific rules when alleged conduct reflects unethical or unfair treatment of customers. In cases like those involving McPherson, Rule 2010 may be implicated where:
- An advisor engages in high-risk market timing that prioritizes short-term speculation over prudent long-term planning, particularly during extreme volatility like the COVID-19 crash.
- Customers claim that the advisor’s actions unnecessarily magnified their losses or deprived them of a substantial recovery, while the advisor failed to fully disclose the risks or alternatives.
- Allegations of an unauthorized wire transfer—even if ultimately attributed to identity theft and reimbursed—raise questions about the safeguards in place to protect client funds and whether the handling of the incident met “high standards of commercial honor.”
Even when a customer is reimbursed for an unauthorized transfer, regulators and arbitrators may scrutinize the circumstances to determine whether internal controls, verification procedures, or communications with the client were adequate under Rule 2010’s ethical standards.
FINRA Rule 3110 requires brokerage firms to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and FINRA rules. Although Rule 3110 is formally directed at firms rather than individual brokers, it often plays a significant role in customer cases involving high-risk strategies or transaction irregularities. In matters like those reported for McPherson:
- A supervising firm may be expected to review account activity and strategy changes, particularly during periods of significant market turmoil such as early 2020, to ensure that advisors are not engaging in improvised market-timing strategies that could be unsuitable or excessively risky for clients.
- Supervisors should have systems to flag unusual liquidation and repurchase patterns across customer accounts, prompting closer review of whether those strategies are adequately documented and suitable.
- In an incident involving a wire transfer to a third party, supervisory controls should include robust identity-verification procedures, confirmation steps, and follow-up reviews to ensure that funds are not misdirected or misused.
For investors, potential Rule 3110 issues can be significant because they may support claims not only against the individual advisor but also against the supervising brokerage firm, which typically has greater resources to satisfy an arbitration award or settlement.
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.
