Colorado Springs, CO | January 14, 2026 — Christian Ramsey (CRD# 3038410), a former financial advisor with GWN Securities Inc., is facing a pending FINRA arbitration alleging he exploited a client’s lack of understanding by selling high-commission, complex, and illiquid alternative investments. According to FINRA Case #25-01211 filed in June 2025, the complaint seeks $250,000 in damages and alleges Ramsey misrepresented non-traded securities as “lower risk” despite their illiquidity, concentration issues, and high commissions. The claimant alleges Ramsey prioritized his own compensation over the client’s best interests, particularly as the client neared retirement. Ramsey has two prior customer dispute disclosures, one employment termination, and an outstanding civil judgment on his FINRA BrokerCheck record. This case highlights serious concerns about broker misconduct involving complex alternative investments and investment fraud.
BrokerCheck Snapshot
Name: Christian McDonald Ramsey
CRD #: 3038410
Firm: GWN Securities Inc. (no longer registered)
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Years in Industry: 28
Number of Disclosures: 4 (2 customer disputes, 1 termination, 1 judgment/lien)
Current Status: Not currently registered with FINRA
Pending $250,000 Alternative Investments Arbitration
FINRA Arbitration Case #25-01211
On June 11, 2025, a client filed a FINRA arbitration complaint against Christian Ramsey alleging he exploited the client’s lack of understanding by selling unsuitable, high-commission alternative investments.
Arbitration Details:
- Date Notice Served: June 11, 2025
- Employer When Activities Occurred: Foothill Securities, Inc.
- Product Type: Non-Traded Securities
- Alleged Damages: $250,000.00
- FINRA Case Number: 25-01211
- Status: Pending
Detailed Allegations:
The complaint contains serious allegations about Ramsey’s conduct involving alternative investments:
Exploitation of Client’s Lack of Understanding: Respondents allegedly exploited the claimant’s lack of understanding by selling high-commission, complex, and illiquid alternative investments.
Inflated Pricing Without Market Disclosure: They encouraged the claimant to rely on their advice while referencing inflated pricing without disclosing that no true market existed for these securities.
Concealment of Liquidation Options: The claimant was allegedly left uninformed of available liquidation or mitigation options, keeping him dependent on respondents’ guidance and delaying any potential complaint.
Ongoing Unsuitable Advice: Despite ongoing duties, respondents allegedly continued advising the claimant to hold these unsuitable investments, misrepresenting them as “lower risk” despite their illiquidity, concentration issues, and high commissions.
Breach of Fiduciary Standards: The claimant reasonably relied on respondents’ superior knowledge and believed they would act in his best interest, particularly given his nearing retirement. Instead, respondents allegedly prioritized their own compensation, ignoring regulatory standards for sales of complex products to retail investors.
Substantial Losses: Respondents’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions caused the claimant to invest in and retain unsuitable products, resulting in substantial losses.
The complaint notes that no specific dates were provided for when the alleged misconduct occurred, though the employer listed is Foothill Securities, Inc., where Ramsey worked from January 2009 to February 2016.
Understanding Non-Traded Securities and Alternative Investments
Non-traded securities represent some of the riskiest and most problematic investments sold to retail investors. These complex products include:
Non-Traded REITs: Real estate investment trusts not listed on public exchanges, typically charging fees of 10-15% of the investment amount.
Non-Traded Business Development Companies (BDCs): Closed-end investment funds that invest in small and mid-sized companies, often with limited liquidity and high fees.
Private Placements: Securities sold without SEC registration, typically to accredited investors, with severe restrictions on resale.
Structured Products: Complex derivatives tied to underlying assets, often with opaque pricing and minimal secondary markets.
Oil and Gas Partnerships: Direct participation programs in energy exploration with high risk and tax complexities.
Why These Investments Are Problematic:
No True Market: As the complaint alleges, many non-traded securities have no real secondary market, making it impossible to sell without significant losses or waiting years for liquidity events.
Inflated Pricing: Without market-based pricing, valuations are often based on appraisals or internal estimates that may significantly overstate the actual value.
High Commissions: Brokers can earn 7-10% or more in upfront commissions, creating enormous conflicts of interest.
Illiquidity: Investors’ money can be locked up for 5-10 years or longer, making these products unsuitable for anyone needing access to funds.
Complexity: The structures are often too complex for average investors to understand, requiring sophisticated financial knowledge.
Lack of Transparency: Without public trading and disclosure requirements, investors have limited information about the underlying investments and performance.
Pattern of Complaints / Risk Factors
With multiple customer dispute disclosures spanning different firms and time periods—including allegations of unauthorized trading, misrepresentation of risk, exploitation of client lack of understanding, and prioritizing commission over client interests—the pattern may indicate concerns related to sale of complex alternative investments, inadequate risk disclosure, concentration in illiquid products, or failure to supervise. Investors who hold significant positions in non-traded REITs, private placements, or other alternative investments should carefully review their portfolio allocation and seek legal guidance if similar issues occurred.
Prior Customer Complaint: Variable Annuity – Closed/No Action (2010)
Ramsey has one prior customer dispute from 2009 that was closed without action.
Complaint Details:
- Date Complaint Received: February 26, 2009
- Employer When Activities Occurred: QA3 Financial Corp
- Allegation: Client alleged the representative and third-party money manager made unauthorized subaccount changes in her American Skandia variable annuity and that these changes were not consistent with her stated risk tolerance/investment objective
- Product Type: Variable Annuity
- Alleged Damages: $143,000.00
- Status: Closed/No Action
- Status Date: December 31, 2010
Ramsey’s Statement: “Advisor states that the investment was suitable and that client was informed of the investments, was visited by advisor on numerous occasions and was updated, in writing on a regular basis regarding account activity and account status.”
While this complaint was closed without action, the $143,000 in alleged damages and allegations of unauthorized changes inconsistent with risk tolerance demonstrate an early pattern of clients questioning Ramsey’s suitability determinations and account management practices.
1998 Employment Termination: Unauthorized Transaction Processing
Ramsey’s earliest disclosure involves termination from Wells Fargo Bank in 1998 for processing transactions without proper customer identification.
Termination Details:
- Employer: Wells Fargo Bank
- Termination Type: Discharged
- Termination Date: October 20, 1998
- Allegation: Gave investment information and processed a transaction to an unauthorized individual. Failed to identify a customer when processing a trade
- Product Type: Mutual Fund(s)
Ramsey’s Statement: “Wells Fargo policy is to require customer identification at the beginning of every phone call. I processed a redemption to a bank account which did not go through on or about 10/3/1998. I called back client to reprocess the same redemption by mail on 10/4/98 but did not ID the client when I called back. Resigned 10/19/03 due to failure to follow bank policy and opening the bank up to potential loss. I had previously identified the client’s caregiver several times with the client’s approval.”
This early termination—occurring at the beginning of Ramsey’s career—demonstrates a failure to follow basic compliance procedures designed to protect clients and the firm from unauthorized transactions.
Outstanding Civil Judgment: $5,099.83
Ramsey has an outstanding civil judgment that remains unpaid since 2014.
Judgment Details:
- Judgment Holder: Midland Funding LLC
- Amount: $5,099.83
- Type: Civil judgment
- Date Filed: March 10, 2014
- Court: Sacramento Superior Court, Sacramento, CA
- Case Number: 3434-2011-0099689
- Status: Outstanding (Yes)
- Date Individual Learned: February 23, 2016
Ramsey’s Statement: “Court ordered repayment but no set amount or terms. I currently pay $25/mo at my discretion.”
An outstanding judgment over $5,000 that has remained unpaid for more than a decade raises questions about financial responsibility. At the stated rate of $25 per month, it would take over 17 years to fully repay the judgment, not including any interest or fees.
Ramsey’s Career Background and Multiple Business Ventures
Christian McDonald Ramsey has worked in the securities industry for 28 years across multiple firms and maintains numerous outside business activities.
Employment History:
- QRIA, Inc. (May 2023 – Present) – President and Chief Compliance Officer in Colorado Springs, CO
- GWN Securities, Inc. (February 2016 – May 2023) – Registered Representative in Palm Beach Gardens, FL
- Foothill Securities, Inc. (January 2009 – February 2016) – Registered Representative in Sierra Vista, AZ
- QA3 Financial Corp. (March 2005 – January 2009) – Roseville, CA
- Wells Fargo Securities Inc. (April 1998 – November 1998)
Securities Licenses:
- Series 6 (Investment Company Products) – passed April 1998 and renewed January 2023
- Series 7 (General Securities Representative) – passed March 2005
- Series 63 (Uniform Securities Agent State Law) – passed April 2005
- Series 65 (Uniform Investment Adviser Law) – passed October 2004
- SIE (Securities Industry Essentials) – passed October 2018
Current Status: Ramsey is not currently registered with FINRA. He currently serves as President and Chief Compliance Officer of QRIA, Inc., an investment advisory firm.
Extensive Outside Business Activities:
Ramsey’s BrokerCheck record discloses numerous outside business activities, which can create conflicts of interest:
- CMR Financial Services, Inc. – Wholly owned by Ramsey for financial, insurance, and estate planning (60 hours/month during trading hours)
- Advisor Resources LLC – Business owner, aggregating product news and information (10 hours/month)
- Writer/Author – Creating written content including books, articles, and press releases through Independent Media Solutions (4 hours/month)
- Q Exchange, LLC – President, serving as Qualified Intermediary for 1031 exchanges (40 hours/month)
- INVTR Administrators LLC – Manager, administering promissory notes as disinterested third-party service (10 hours/month)
The disclosed hours total approximately 124 hours per month across various business activities, raising questions about time and attention devoted to client relationships and investment oversight.
The Danger of High-Commission Alternative Investments
The pending complaint’s allegations about “high-commission, complex, and illiquid alternative investments” highlight one of the most serious problems in retail brokerage: advisors recommending products that generate substantial commissions regardless of whether they’re suitable for clients.
How Commission Conflicts Work:
A typical non-traded REIT might pay the selling broker 7-10% upfront commission. On a $100,000 investment, that’s $7,000-$10,000 in immediate compensation. Compare this to a mutual fund charging perhaps 3-5% upfront, or a no-load fund charging nothing upfront. The incentive to sell the higher-commission product is obvious and powerful.
Misrepresentation of Risk:
The complaint alleges Ramsey misrepresented non-traded securities as “lower risk” despite their illiquidity and concentration issues. This type of misrepresentation is particularly harmful because:
- Illiquid investments carry inherent risk simply from the inability to access funds
- Concentration in alternative investments violates basic diversification principles
- “Lower risk” statements may lead investors to allocate too much capital to unsuitable products
- Near-retirement investors have limited time horizons to recover from losses
Recovering Losses from Alternative Investment Fraud
Investors who experienced losses due to unsuitable alternative investment recommendations, misrepresentation of risk, excessive concentration in illiquid products, or undisclosed conflicts of interest may be entitled to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.
Patil Law, P.C. has over 15 years of experience representing investors in FINRA arbitration and securities litigation, with more than $25 million recovered for clients across 1,000+ cases. We provide a free, confidential consultation to review your potential claim. Our firm works on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay no attorney fees unless we successfully recover money for you.
About FINRA Arbitration
FINRA arbitration is a streamlined dispute resolution process for securities-related claims. It offers a faster, more cost-effective alternative to traditional court litigation. Most cases are resolved within 12-16 months. Claims generally must be filed within six years of the incident.
Related Brokers and Firms
Christian McDonald Ramsey previously worked at GWN Securities Inc. and Foothill Securities, Inc. Investors who worked with advisors at these firms and hold positions in non-traded REITs, private placements, or other alternative investments should review their accounts carefully.
For more information about recovering losses from unsuitable alternative investments, visit our pages on broker misconduct, investment fraud, REIT losses, and FINRA arbitration.
Understanding Your Rights as an Investor
What constitutes unsuitable alternative investment recommendations?
Alternative investments like non-traded REITs, private placements, and business development companies may be unsuitable when they don’t match an investor’s liquidity needs, risk tolerance, time horizon, or financial situation. Warning signs include concentration of 10% or more of a portfolio in illiquid investments, recommendations to retirees or near-retirees who need access to funds, failure to explain that no secondary market exists, misrepresentation of these products as “safe” or “lower risk,” and inadequate disclosure of high commission structures. Brokers must have a reasonable basis to believe alternative investments are suitable before recommending them.
How can I tell if my broker prioritized commissions over my interests?
Red flags suggesting commission-driven recommendations include multiple purchases of high-commission products like non-traded REITs or variable annuities, concentration in products paying 7-10% commissions while avoiding lower-cost alternatives, recommendations that changed after Regulation Best Interest took effect in 2020, statements minimizing liquidity risks or overstating potential returns, and resistance to discussing commission structures or conflicts of interest. Under Regulation Best Interest, brokers must act in your best interest, not their own financial gain. If your portfolio is heavily weighted toward high-commission alternative investments, this may indicate a conflict of interest problem.
What should I do if I hold non-traded securities that have lost value?
First, obtain complete documentation including account statements, prospectuses, trade confirmations, and all written communications with your broker. Request a detailed explanation of the investment, including its current valuation, liquidity options, and whether any tender offers or redemption programs exist. Do not make hasty decisions to sell at a loss without understanding all options. Then consult with a securities attorney who specializes in alternative investment cases to evaluate whether you have grounds for a claim based on suitability, misrepresentation, or failure to disclose material risks. Time limits apply, so act promptly even if the investment is still being held.
Can I recover losses if my complaint was previously denied?
The fact that a prior complaint was closed without action or denied doesn’t necessarily prevent recovery through formal FINRA arbitration. Internal firm complaint processes and FINRA arbitration are different forums with different standards. Many complaints initially denied by firms result in settlements or awards when pursued through arbitration. Additionally, if you’ve discovered new information about misrepresentations, undisclosed conflicts, or additional unsuitable recommendations since the initial complaint, you may have grounds for a new claim. Consult with a securities attorney to evaluate whether arbitration is viable despite a prior denial.
What evidence do I need to prove my alternative investment claim?
Critical evidence includes account statements showing concentration in alternative investments, prospectuses and offering documents for the investments, trade confirmations and commission disclosures, account opening documents showing your stated risk tolerance and investment objectives, all emails and written communications with your broker, recordings of conversations if available, and evidence of misrepresentations about liquidity or risk. Additionally, expert testimony may be needed to establish that the investments were unsuitable given your profile. An experienced securities attorney can help gather and organize evidence to build the strongest possible case.
How long do I have to file a FINRA arbitration claim?
FINRA’s eligibility rule generally requires claims to be filed within six years from the occurrence or event giving rise to the claim. However, determining the “occurrence” can be complex with alternative investments. The six-year period might run from the date of purchase, the date you discovered the unsuitability, or the date losses occurred. For ongoing misconduct—such as a broker repeatedly advising you to hold unsuitable investments—the statute of limitations may be extended. Given these complexities and the strict time limits, consult with a securities attorney immediately if you suspect misconduct, even if the investments occurred years ago.
About Patil Law, P.C.
Patil Law, P.C. is a securities litigation firm dedicated to representing investors who have suffered losses due to broker misconduct, unsuitable recommendations, and securities fraud. Founded in 2018 by attorney Chetan Patil, the firm focuses exclusively on FINRA arbitration and investment loss recovery.
With over 15 years of combined experience in securities law, Patil Law has successfully recovered more than $25 million for clients across 1,000+ cases. Attorney Chetan Patil earned his law degree from Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Attorneys Gabriela Dubrocq and Patricia Herrera earned their law degrees from University of Miami. The firm handles cases nationwide involving unauthorized trading, churning, unsuitable investments, breach of fiduciary duty, and failure to supervise.
Patil Law works on a contingency fee basis, meaning clients pay no attorney fees unless the firm successfully recovers money on their behalf. All consultations are free and confidential.
Contact Patil Law Today
If you invested with Christian McDonald Ramsey at GWN Securities, Foothill Securities, or any other firm and hold positions in non-traded REITs, private placements, business development companies, or other alternative investments that have lost value or proven illiquid, we encourage you to contact us for a free consultation.
Call: 800-950-6553
Email: info@patillaw.com
Website: investmentlosslawyer.com
There is no cost and no obligation. We’re here to help you understand your rights and options.
The information in this post is based on FINRA BrokerCheck records and public filings. Allegations described are pending or unproven and may be contested. All investors are entitled to fair treatment under securities laws. This is attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This communication is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.