Zakir formal notice and Derek's response — 2026-09-03

Derek's reply at 12:14 PM ET on 2026-09-03 to Raya Zakir's "FORMAL NOTICE: Unresolved overcharging issue since 2018", sent the evening of 2026-09-02 (8:44 PM in the quoted header) with Rob Zakir copied. Derek copied Rob, Brandon, and JT. Raya's original is quoted in full in the raw file. Jamar's 11:33 AM heads-up to JT about the same email carried the notice as a PDF and is cited in also:. The Zakir Record on Derek's Compliance Record folder in Box and the local matter file hold the working analysis.

Summary

• Raya's notice: fees on the accounts have been incorrect since 2018; concerns raised several times over recent months were answered with "under investigation" and nothing in writing; she signed the new lower-rate agreement a few days earlier as a step toward making things right, not as a resolution; Rob's request to speak with the Compliance Officer went unanswered.
• Her four demands, due end of day Friday 2026-09-04: (1) the original and new agreements with all fee schedules, disclosures, and amendments; (2) a complete accounting of every fee since 2018 mapped to the disclosed terms in effect; (3) a written explanation of every discrepancy; (4) a concrete reimbursement plan and timeline. Without a substantive written response "by end of next week" she will file with FINRA, the SEC, the California securities regulator, and Colorado DORA, and may engage her attorney.
• Derek's reply: the 1% agreement governs going forward and did not settle the historical question; he apologizes for the pace (raised in July, again August 13 and August 24, interim answers each time).
• Work in hand: annual performance reports 2018 through 2026 YTD, a since-inception report, a complete fee-debit report by account and date, and a complete transaction report, all for 2018-01-01 through 2026-09-02; he will not send them piecemeal.
• What still has to be reconstructed: the accounts moved across three firms (JP Turner, Cetera/Summit, Triumph) and two custodians (TD Ameritrade, then Schwab), each changing the billing system and fee schedule of record; his working explanation is that while the DB plan existed, Third-Party Administrator costs for recordkeeping, testing, and filings were bundled into the same debit as the advisory fee, which is why the plan accounts look charged well above 1%; the TPA has since been removed. He calls this "my working explanation, not my conclusion."
• Dates he committed to: Friday 2026-09-11, the complete document package (agreements, Schedule A, revised agreement, all fee schedules, amendments, disclosures, the four reports); Friday 2026-10-02, the complete written reconciliation with amounts, calculation, and credit timeline if anything is owed. No figure until the work is done. He flagged the September 15 tax filing deadline as his load for the next twelve days.
• Compliance: the complaint "is being formally logged and referred to our Chief Compliance Officer, who will contact you directly"; Brandon is named with his phone number and is available independently of Derek.
• He proposed a call the next day, 2026-09-04, afternoon, and asked what number to call; closed with a personal paragraph about the trust that came through Moe and family.

Decisions

• Derek: the historical review stays open and separate from the new agreement; deliverables on 2026-09-11 and 2026-10-02; no number before the work is done.
• Derek: the complaint is formally logged and referred to the CCO; Brandon will contact the clients directly.
• Derek: the TPA-bundling explanation is a hypothesis to test, not the answer.

They asked me for

• Rob and Raya Zakir (of the firm, through Derek): the four items above, originally by end of day 2026-09-04; Derek substituted 2026-09-11 and 2026-10-02.
• Derek (of Compliance, by copying JT and Brandon): the formal complaint log entry and the CCO's direct contact he promised in writing.

I asked them for

• Nothing raised.

Concerns and frustrations raised

• Raya: trust extended on a personal recommendation and not honored; months of "under investigation"; will not accept a lower rate as a substitute for reimbursement; regulators and an attorney are the next step.
• Rob (per Raya): asked to speak with the Compliance Officer and got no response.
• Derek: his own pace; the tax-deadline load through September 15; the record spans three firms and two custodians and has to be rebuilt debit by debit.

What they are focused on

• Raya and Rob: documentation, a line-by-line reconciliation, and a reimbursement timeline, in writing.
• Derek: a reconciliation that "will hold up — for you, and for anyone else who reviews it"; keeping the relationship.

Doable / not doable / needs a decision

• The 2026-09-11 document package → doable; the matter file already holds the agreements and the Black Diamond exports; Derek says the four reports are compiled.
• The 2026-10-02 reconciliation → doable only after two decisions: which fee baseline applies to which period (2% then 1.25% per Derek in the 2026-09-03 meeting, contracted 1% from 2018 per the memo, and now the TPA-bundling split per this email), and whether the TPA amounts are separable from the advisory fee in the debit history. CCO call.
• Raya's 2026-09-04 deadline → not met by design; Derek replaced it with his dates. Her escalation trigger is "end of next week", which lands on or about 2026-09-11, the same day as Derek's package.
• Formal complaint log entry and CCO contact → doable now; Compliance owns it; Brandon was out sick on 2026-09-03.

Action items

Mine

• Log the Zakir complaint in the firm complaint record per Derek's written commitment, with Brandon — target 2026-09-04 — (Notion: not pushed)
• Confirm with Brandon that he contacts the Zakirs directly as CCO, as Derek promised in writing — target 2026-09-04 — (Notion: not pushed)
• Build the 2026-09-11 package checklist from Derek's list (agreements, Schedule A, revised agreement, fee schedules, amendments, disclosures, four reports) and check it against the matter file — target 2026-09-08 — (Notion: not pushed)
• Test Derek's TPA-bundling explanation against the fee-debit history and fold it into the baseline question already open with Brandon — before 2026-09-11 — (Notion: not pushed)

Theirs

• Brandon: contact the Zakirs directly as CCO — no date set by Derek; "will contact you directly"
• Derek: the 2026-09-04 call with Raya and Rob, once they give a time and number
• Derek: deliver the document package on 2026-09-11 and the written reconciliation on 2026-10-02
• Raya and Rob: reply with a call time and number

Suggestions for me

• This email is now the firm's written commitment on dates and on the complaint referral. Treat 2026-09-11 as fixed and put Brandon's direct contact on the calendar this week, not after his review of the memo.
• Three narratives now exist for the fee history: the meeting (2% while the DB plan existed, 1.25% verbal after the decant), the memo (contracted 1% from 2018), and this email (advisory fee plus bundled TPA costs). Resolve them into one baseline table before anything goes to the clients; Jamar is searching for the 2% MAP or agreement (Teams, 5:21 PM).
• Raya's regulator list includes Colorado DORA and California; the complaint log entry should reflect a threatened, not filed, complaint as of this date.
• Derek's apology and his personal paragraph set the tone; the package should match it: complete, dated, no piecemeal sends.

Notable quotes

"I will not treat the lower rate as a substitute for reimbursement of past overcharges, and I will not continue to accept vague reassurances in place of documentation." — Raya Zakir "I came to you as Moe's family and I never thought we'd be where we are." — Raya Zakir "signing the revised 1% agreement did not resolve the historical question, and I have not treated it as though it did." — Derek "That is my working explanation, not my conclusion. I am not asking you to accept it on my word." — Derek "Your complaint is being formally logged and referred to our Chief Compliance Officer, who will contact you directly and who is available to speak with you independently of me at any point in this process." — Derek "I would rather earn my way back with you than have this settled by someone else." — Derek