Kenneth John Arellano

Full Report

Key Points

• Kenneth John Arellano is a registered securities professional (CRD #2660786) whose record shows a regulatory action for using a non-approved text messaging service to handle business communications, resulting in incomplete firm books and records.

• The violation involved communications concerning customers’ investment profiles and account balances sent via a messaging service that his firm did not approve, and none of those messages were retained by the firm for preservation.

• The sanctions imposed in the action included a fine of US $5,000 and a 30-day suspension from association with any FINRA member firm (effective November 20 to December 19, 2023).

• His employment and registration history spans multiple firms over many years, showing significant experience in the financial-services industry.

• The publicly available records do not appear to show large investor arbitration awards, bankruptcy filings, or multiple repeated regulatory disciplinary actions—suggesting the breach may be procedural rather than indicative of large-scale misconduct.

Overview

Kenneth John Arellano is a financial-services professional registered in the U.S. securities industry under CRD number 2660786. He has served as both a broker-dealer representative and an investment adviser representative. His employment history includes firms such as LPL Financial LLC (October 2013 to October 2019), Cadaret Grant & Co., Inc. (October 2019 to August 2024), and more recently a registration with Vanderbilt-affiliated firms (from August 2024 onward). His services are portrayed as wealth-management and investment advisory in nature, involving portfolio management and financial planning.

Allegations and Concerns

A primary allegation concerns his use of a text-messaging service not approved by his firm to exchange securities-related business communications — including customer account information and investment profiles — which the firm did not retain as required. The regulatory findings indicate that he caused his member firm to maintain incomplete books and records. Although the disciplinary action appears to be limited to that procedural violation, there is also a disclosed “customer dispute” in his records, with limited details publicly available; no major judgment or arbitration award tied to that dispute is clearly documented in the public summary.

Customer Feedback

There is very limited publicly available client-review or consumer testimonial data for Kenneth John Arellano. One profile indicates that there are “0 Ratings” for his services, suggesting no verified public consumer review submissions. Because of this absence of detailed client commentary, neither meaningful positive nor negative quotes from consumers are publicly documented. In effect, the lack of client feedback is itself a data point: potential clients may wish to note the absence of independent user-reviews when assessing his suitability.

Risk Considerations

From a risk perspective:

• Compliance/operational risk: His record of using unapproved communications channels and failure to preserve required records indicates a gap in process controls, which may raise risk for clients or firms relying upon his services.

• Reputational risk: A regulatory sanction—even if relatively minor—may affect perceptions of trust and oversight among prospective clients or business partners.

• Legal/defensive risk: If a client were to dispute advice given or transactions executed, the absence of archived communications may hinder documentation and defense of the advisor’s actions.

• Business/continuity risk: Should further issues arise, his history may hamper future employment or association opportunities within firms that place high value on compliance integrity.

• Mitigating factors: To date, there is no publicly known large investor loss, major litigation, bankruptcy or systemic misconduct, which reduces—but does not eliminate—the risk of client harm.

Business Relations and Associations

Arellano has been affiliated with multiple broker-dealer and advisory firms. His registration history shows his association with LPL Financial LLC from October 2013 to October 2019, and with Cadaret Grant & Co., Inc. from October 2019 to August 2024. In August 2024 he began registration with Vanderbilt-affiliated firms. These affiliations provide a long industry history and also broad firm exposure. There are no publicly detailed associations with other individuals or partners flagged for misconduct in his disclosures (beyond his own regulatory record). Thus, while he operates within standard advisory-firm networks, no additional high-risk business associations have emerged in the public disclosures reviewed.

Legal and Financial Concerns

The primary legal/regulatory concern is the disciplinary action that found he caused his firm to maintain incomplete books and records by using a non-approved text messaging service and failing to preserve any of the communications. As a result, he was fined US $5,000 and suspended for 30 days. Beyond that, while a “customer dispute” is disclosed in the adviser-info database, no large arbitration award, unpaid judgment, or bankruptcy is publicly listed in the summary of his filings. The absence of such public filings is a positive, but the record-keeping lapse remains a significant procedural shortfall.

Risk Assessment Table

In my assessment, Kenneth John Arellano presents as a seasoned professional in the financial-services industry with many years of experience and multiple firm affiliations. The documented regulatory sanction appears to centre on a procedural compliance issue — specifically, the use of an unapproved messaging service and failure to retain required records — rather than allegations of outright client fraud or large-scale investor losses. That distinction is important: while the violation is serious from a compliance perspective, it does not appear (based on current public records) to reflect a pattern of deliberate client harm.

From a prospective client’s vantage point, the pros include his breadth of experience and established industry registration. The cons centre on the documented control lapse, which signals that either his supervision or his own practice may have lacked stringent process adherence at least for a period. As a matter of advice: if one is considering working with him, it would be wise to ask how his current firm monitors and archives all advisor communications (text, email, voice), whether any further complaints have arisen post-2023, and how client communications are documented going forward.

In summary: The risk is real, particularly operational/compliance-based, but currently appears contained rather than systemic. With proper due diligence, engaging with him might be acceptable—but one should not ignore the earlier lapse and should verify how it has been remediated.