Legal name versus known as name

or Register to post new content in the forum

11 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Aug 9, 2006 2:45 pm

I would like to use on my business cards and letters that I send to clients, but have been informed by my firm's licensing department that I cannot.  They insist that I must use my legal name as it appears on my social security card.

Someone at the home office was able to update something such that on the NASD BrokerCheck website my preferred name has been added under "OTHER NAMES". 

I can't believe I'm the only person in this industry who has ever preferred to use their middle name.  Can anybody shed some light on this subject?

Thanks


Aug 9, 2006 2:51 pm
CareerChanger:

I would like to use on my business cards and letters that I send to clients, but have been informed by my firm's licensing department that I cannot.  They insist that I must use my legal name as it appears on my social security card.

Someone at the home office was able to update something such that on the NASD BrokerCheck website my preferred name has been added under "OTHER NAMES". 

I can't believe I'm the only person in this industry who has ever preferred to use their middle name.  Can anybody shed some light on this subject?

Thanks



Get your manager involved.


You should be able to use any variation of your own name.


What you're not allowed to do is use nicknames that may suggest good fortune such as "Joeboy "Lucky" Jones" or "Neal "Da Winner" Smith."


Nor are you allowed to use letters after your name that are essentially meaningless--most firms will not allow you to use things like "Bob Broker, BBA"  or even MBA. They will allow CFP and some of those life insurance industry designations.


My cards said, "NASD Newbie, RCG" the RCG meant "Really Cute Guy."


Aug 9, 2006 4:16 pm

FWIW: I have a business card from a wirehouse veteran:


S. Robert Anderson (name changed to protect the innocent)

Aug 9, 2006 5:13 pm

Agree...that sounds like total horsesh*t.  You should be able to use S. Robert Anderson or whatever, as long as it's yours.  It seems like lots of attorneys use that syntax and no one gets their shorts in a wad over it.  I used to have a boss names E. Donald.  When I discovered that E was for Ernest, I understood his preference... (that's for you, Newbie)

Aug 9, 2006 5:58 pm
CareerChanger:

I would like to use on my business cards and letters that I send to clients, but have been informed by my firm's licensing department that I cannot.  They insist that I must use my legal name as it appears on my social security card.

Someone at the home office was able to update something such that on the NASD BrokerCheck website my preferred name has been added under "OTHER NAMES". 

I can't believe I'm the only person in this industry who has ever preferred to use their middle name.  Can anybody shed some light on this subject?

Thanks






I agree.  Get your manager involved.

I deal with plenty of brokers who have different legal and professional names.  It happens often enough to be a pain in the butt for recruiters.  This includes shortened names (Jeff not Jeffrey) and use of middle names (N. Beauregard Newbie).

I've even seen brokers register "Other Names" with the NASD.  Try looking up Bob Smith (or whatever) at your current firm and you'll probably find get some Roberts with Bob listed under "Other Names".

From what I've seen you can call yourslef whatever you want as long as the variation is intuitive and not deceptive.


Aug 9, 2006 6:43 pm
CareerChanger:

I would like to use on my business cards and letters that I send to clients, but have been informed by my firm's licensing department that I cannot.  They insist that I must use my legal name as it appears on my social security card.

Someone at the home office was able to update something such that on the NASD BrokerCheck website my preferred name has been added under "OTHER NAMES". 

I can't believe I'm the only person in this industry who has ever preferred to use their middle name.  Can anybody shed some light on this subject?

Thanks


Might you be employed by Edward Jones?  Sounds like one of their silly "requirements".

Aug 10, 2006 8:16 am

No, not Edward Jones.

Apparently this went all the way up to the VP of Licensing.  This all started when I submitted some stuff to compliance using T. Is Idiotic.  Compliance came back and said the only way I could use that format, as opposed to, This I. Idiotic, would be to update my U4 to reflect the use of the other name.  The admin called Licensing to inquire how to do this.  Nobody could figure it out, but eventually it happened and all was right with the world.  Yesterday the admin received a fax from Licensing saying that this was not ok. 

My manager has suggested that I legally change my name to "Guaranteed Return", lol.




Aug 10, 2006 9:16 pm
compliancejerk:
CareerChanger:

I would like to use on my business cards and letters that I send to clients, but have been informed by my firm's licensing department that I cannot.  They insist that I must use my legal name as it appears on my social security card.

Someone at the home office was able to update something such that on the NASD BrokerCheck website my preferred name has been added under "OTHER NAMES". 

I can't believe I'm the only person in this industry who has ever preferred to use their middle name.  Can anybody shed some light on this subject?

Thanks


Might you be employed by Edward Jones?  Sounds like one of their silly "requirements".



Only Jones or a bank would have such a ridiculous rule.

Aug 11, 2006 4:29 pm
rrbdlawyer:

You guys drive me nuts!  Why most of you seem to think that regulatory rules are somehow amenable to a commonsense interpretation is beyond me.  Here's a newsflash:  The NASD, NYSE, SEC, and States have tons of rules and regulations that only a lawyer could write and maybe only a few lawyers even understand.  If you are all going to give legal/regulatory advice based upon your "gut," I can assure you that I will remain a very busy defense lawyer.


Now, let me answer the question.


No,you cannot just use any variation of your name.  Frankly, your BD has a very strong point when it insists that you only use your "legal" name as reflected on your social security number.  First off, NASD (for example) helps to maintain its BrokerCheck database and that file can easily be circumvented by folks who use nicknames --- why?  Well, gee, let's see --- we're dealing with a rigid bureaucracy that set up a computer file of first, middle, and last names.  Like what?  You think that they would automatically embed Bob, Bobby, Rob, Robby as variants for Robert?  Also, with a growing influx of foreign-born individuals (or those with non-Anglo Saxon names), you wind up with a guy named "Dmitri" using the name of "Manny" --- good luck knowing that Manny Smirnoff is actually Dmitri Smirnoff.


There is also a more rigid explanation.  For many years folks were pretending to be RR "X" during cold calling, when they were either not registered or were RR "Y" (who was barred in State Z where the called client was resident).  If you will read this old NASD Notice to Members you will see that the NASD not only warns against using aliases during cold calls, but also makes it clear that you may not use any variation of a name that is not listed on your U4.


http://www.nasd.com/web/groups/rules_regs/documents/notice_t o_members/nasdw_005187.pdf




Thank you for your explanation.  However, my social security card reads .  By your reasoning, everyone would have to identify themselves as such, not .

How is any different than the other?  My middle name is part of my legal name.  People know me by my middle name.  Unless I'm paying attention, I won't even answer to my first name.

My U4 reflects the use of under "Other Names".


Aug 11, 2006 5:30 pm

"If you will read this old NASD Notice to Members you will see that the NASD not only warns against using aliases during cold calls, but also makes it clear that you may not use any variation of a name that is not listed on your U4."


"Compliance came back and said the only way I could use that format, as opposed to, This I. Idiotic, would be to update my U4 to reflect the use of the other name.  The admin called Licensing to inquire how to do this.  Nobody could figure it out, but eventually it happened and all was right with the world."


It appears that the desired variation IS on the U-4...so why is desiring to put the other name variation on a business card, taboo?


Also, how do you explain this?


"FWIW: I have a business card from a wirehouse veteran:


S. Robert Anderson (name changed to protect the innocent)"


I have my doubts that this matches this man's social security card.  I can tell you as a matter of fact that my business card does not match my social security card or the NASD website (I use a middle initial instead of my complete middle name).  It's obvious from the above "S. Robert Anderson" example that not all firms have the same interpretation of the rule as the original poster's firm.  Furthermore, I've seen numerous cards in the business that are strictly first and last name.  I believe the original poster deserves a better explanation than "you can't do that".


Bill, I respect an appreciate what you bring to the forum, and I'm glad the foolish things we do keep you gainfully employed.  For the record, I don't attempt to resolve legal issues without consulting an attorney, but I don't believe that asking "why can I not do this?" qualifies as creating a legal issue.  Sometime when you're not so busy, please post some examples of how posts similar to those above have caused legal difficulties for those involved...that would be a very useful object lesson.


I'll apologize for sounding like a smartass here, but I'll have to admit that somtimes, I get a little irritated when you post and tell us that we're not allowed to have opinions without possessing a law degree, and post as if everyone else on here lacks a baseline IQ.  If someone takes what I posted above as the basis for any legal action, then he's probably too stupid to be in this business anyway.  Why can we not question the apparent lack of common sense here?  Nowhere did I see anything that indicated any of this was a legal opinion, and I can't imagine using stuff posted on a mostly anonymous chat board as a legal basis for doing anything.  These are opinions...nothing more.

Aug 14, 2006 12:17 am

OK...thanks for clearing that up...I was under the impression that you were saying that the regulators wouldn't allow the name variation...rather than the EMPLOYER taking a conservative stance and not allowing it.  My misunderstanding...


Again, Bill, thanks for all you do and I'll try to remember my medication next time I respond...