Tom Thames (C. Thomas Thames) Responds to One-Star ReviewI am Tom Thames, and this is my response to the ONE-STAR REVIEW published by Peter Dzoghi of Pacific Palisades, CA. I do business as C. Thomas Thames, CFP, CLU, ChFC and my offices are in Elk Grove and Folsom, CA. I am also known as CT Thames and Carroll Thomas Thames. Peter Dzoghi is also known as Pete Dzoghi, and he has used several aliases and stage or character names that I see no need to reveal at this time.
Peter Dzoghi is the only person who has ever given me less than a 5-Star Review on the internet and no one has ever filed a complaint about me or my financial services business with any state or federal regulator. And as far as I know, no one has ever lodged a complaint with any insurance or investment company. I am proud of my record, and I regret that Peter Dzoghi was dissatisfied with my investment services. THE FACTS: About 1992 I sold Peter a few variable annuity investments and a short time later (for reasons I can't recall) I recommended that Peter exchange some of those annuities for other variable annuities. Peter, both insurance companies that were involved, and the investment brokerage firm I was with, agreed that the exchanges were in Peter's best interest, even though Peter had to pay substantial surrender charges to make the exchanges. Twenty (20) years later (about 2012) Peter posted his one-star review and accused me of giving him bad advice when I recommended the original variable annuities, and when I recommended that he exchange some of them. He also accused me of not disclosing and explaining the surrender charges that would apply to early withdrawals from the annuities. I DENY ALL OF THAT. I have never recommended anything to a client that I didn't believe was in their best interest. And I have never sold an annuity of any kind or recommended an annuity exchange or surrender without disclosing and explaining the surrender charges. Furthermore, all variable annuity investors receive a prospectus that includes all fees and charges. Peter was well informed and he signed documents acknowledging that he understood the reason for the exchanges and the surrender charges that would apply. For the record, Peter has never denied that he received the prospectuses, and he has complained about having to pay income taxes on withdrawals, so it seems that he has made some profits on the annuities. Peter's complaints could have been very clearly stated in just a few words, but he has made things unnecessarily complicated by using a website (that he named cthomasthames-review.com) not only to present his one-star review and complain about me, but also to publish his advice and opinions about a variety of financial products and concepts that have nothing to do with me or the transactions he and I did together. It's been a long time since I looked at his website, but the last time I did, he had written more about the other stuff than about any business he and I ever did together. Until recently my long and detailed response on this website addressed not only his complaint about the business he and I did together, but also many of the unrelated subjects that he wrote about. Getting involved in the irrelevant issues that he wrote about was a mistake. Arguing with Peter about financial products that have nothing to do with his variable annuities complaint is a waste of time, and there is no end to it. It just gives him something else to criticize and argue about. No reader should rely on Peter's biased opinions, or on his hand-picked advisers who don't like annuities or other investment products. I believe that any adviser who would support Peter (or me) without knowing all the facts, should not be trusted. And I doubt that any of the advisers Peter has referenced have in fact commented about this particular case. I believe Peter is just referring to comments those advisers may have made in articles or interviews. Of course, they are entitled to their opinions, but there are many very credible and respected financial advisers and reputable financial institutions that would disagree with them. And if annuities are so bad, why do all 50 states license agents to sell them? And why do the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and FINRA allow variable annuities to be sold? I can say from personal experience that some people are very happy to be receiving guaranteed lifetime income from annuities and feeling a little freer to spend their other assets without fear of running out of money before they run out of time. Peter doesn't understand that some people have needs that he evidently doesn't consider important. He may have more money than he will ever spend, but most retirees are not so fortunate. I challenged many of Peter's comments because I felt (and still do) that much of what he wrote was biased and/or incorrect investment advice that could be dangerous to readers. I had good intentions, but it soon became clear that Peter was more interested in trying to discredit any product that I might sell than in the welfare of those who might be reading his one-star review. I still caution everyone not to act on any advice that is offered on Peter's website cthomasthames-review.com, and if anyone reads anything they would like to get a second opinion about, they shouldn't hesitate to contact me at 916-779-4999 or by email to [email protected] to make a complimentary appointment. I promise that there will be no charge and no pressure to do any kind of business with me. And there will be no follow-up advertising or unsolicited contact after the meeting. I believe Peter is doing all that he can to damage my business, and I want to keep the record straight, but I am not doing any of this to gain new clients. My first mistake was immediately responding to Peter's review and trying to explain why I denied any wrongdoing. I should have simply denied it and made it clear that I would say no more until he provided proof that what he was claiming actually happened. To do that he would have had to contact the companies and obtain copies of all the records related to the investments he was complaining about. I couldn't get those records because I hadn't been his broker of record for nearly 20 years. To this day (about 12 years later) he still has not provided proof of anything except that he did pay surrender charges. And I certainly don't deny that. Twelve years since he posted his one-star review and he still refuses to tell me the specific companies and products he is complaining about. When I first saw his review on the internet, I had no idea who he was or what he was talking about. And I said so. He was not happy about that, but he had posted an anonymous review, had not identified any of the companies or products, and although he was careful not to mention it, he was complaining about business we had done twenty years earlier (yes, 20 years). And to top it off, my copies of all the records had been destroyed about 10 years after he and I stopped doing business together. In other words, by 2012 when he posted his first one-star review, I hadn't seen or heard from Peter Dzoghi for somewhere between 10 and 20 years. But Peter thought that just by reading his anonymous review I should have immediately known who he was and remembered all the details of the business we had done together. I have a good memory, but I also talked with a lot of people and did a lot of other business during the 20 years Peter waited to complain. Peter posted his one-star review on Yelp, Google, and Yahoo, but probably because he was complaining about events that happened 20 years earlier, they all eventually rejected his reviews and removed them from their websites. That's when he decided to create his website cthomasthames-review.com. And it was no accident that the name is nearly identical to one of my own websites named cthomasthames-reviewS.com. Mine is "reviews" and his is "review". I was so angry when I discovered that Peter had used my name to create his website but was still trying to remain anonymous by not having his own name anywhere on it, I decided to buy peterdzoghi.com, and planned to use it to make sure that he didn't remain anonymous. Twelve years later I still own that domain but I have never used it. I really do have better things to do than argue with Peter. I think it's worth noting that Peter is not only a former investment client, he and his older brother were also general partners of mine in a fiberglass furniture manufacturing business. We shut that business down when it became obvious that we could no longer comply with environmental regulations, and we all lost money. Peter may be resentful about that, but he followed his brother's lead, they were both well represented by a prominent law firm, and I am not aware of any complaints from him or his brother. Peter has said that I sold him a "variety" of investment products, but the only products of any kind that Peter bought from me were the variable annuities. He did invest with me and his brother in the furniture manufacturing business, but we were all general partners and that was in no way connected to my business of selling registered investment products. I would not have recommended that Peter exchange variable annuities and pay surrender charges without good reason, but since I no longer have records of the transactions, I can't say what that reason was. I can say that no matter what Peter thinks, I have never believed variable annuities were meant for trading, or that they are suitable for everyone. And no matter what Peter says, there could be justifiable reasons to exchange them. And even though Peter says most professional advisers wouldn't hesitate to agree with him, I doubt that very much. The first question most credible professionals would ask is...why did your adviser recommend the exchanges? I have no records and can't say why I recommended the exchanges. And as far as I know Peter has no records that show why I recommended them. But the insurance companies may still have those records, and one of us might be able to get them if Peter would provide the names of the companies and the contract numbers for the annuities he is complaining about. Annuity exchanges were not as scrutinized thirty years ago as they are today, but even then, insurance companies required agents to explain their reasons for recommending annuity replacements. And of course, I had to explain my reasons to Peter, and he would have had to agree. I am fairly confident that my reason or reasons for recommending the exchanges are documented in the insurance company records, and I am also fairly confident that Peter could get those records. Or, if he will give me the names of the companies and the contract numbers of the annuities that replaced the original ones, I may be able to get a copy of the signed forms that show the reason I recommended each of the exchanges. Of course, I can't guarantee that. Without that information from the companies, Peter's contention that I gave him bad advice is just his opinion. If we want the facts we will have to get them from the companies, and without Peter's cooperation that will never happen. If Peter doesn't want the verifiable facts to be exposed, they probably never will be. I think most readers will (and should) wonder why Peter Dzoghi doesn't want the facts published. I can think of only two reasons. One plausible reason that has been suggested to me is that Peter has invested so much time and effort writing about things unrelated to the business he and I did together, that he has pride in his authorship and enjoys trying to be the Dear Abby of finance. Peter may be stubborn and vindictive but he's no fool, so I think that if he wants to be a Dear Abby, he will find a better way to do it than using my name for his website. Maybe something like Peterdzoghi.com. One thing I think we can all agree on is that if Peter wants a large readership, he's never going to get it by directing his comments to the few people who might be searching for my name on the internet. The reason that makes the most sense to me is that Peter wants to continue speculating and making unsubstantiated accusations. That wouldn't be so easy if everyone had all the facts. It has been over 30 years since I sold any annuities to Peter, and I don't know what's in the company records (or if they are even still available) but whatever it is, I am willing to publish the pertinent information for everyone to see. If Peter is acting in good faith, I believe he should be willing to do the same. Otherwise, I think it is not unreasonable to believe that Peter is more interested in harassing me than in proving anything about the business he and I did together. Will the records prove one of us right, and the other wrong? Maybe, maybe not. But at least we will have all the documented facts. That should be of interest to any fair-minded person who is reading both sides of this dispute. Tom Thames C. Thomas Thames October 18, 2024 |
 C. Thomas Thames, CFP, CLU, ChFC
|