I decided to invest my money with Raymond James in XXXX, 2015, due to the guarantee of protection that I would be getting with my investment. My financial advisor at Raymond James informed me that he could not provide better returns then what I was seeing on my own but what he could do is promise me protection from any major loss if the market was to go into a tailspin. His investment strategy he was proposing was to set Stop Losses in my plan to make sure I got out of the market at 10 % loss if the market was ever to have a major drop in the market. He could not believe that I had no protection built into my current plan that would protect me from a catastrophic loss and what he could offer me was peace of mind and a guarantee that even in the worst of times I would not suffer more than a 10 % loss due to the protection that he would put in place with his investment strategy. I believe the Stop Loss investment strategy was not properly explained because this strategy did the opposite of protection and caused me to have a major loss. NO RISK was even mentioned. I should have never been promised protection if that was not true. The sales pitch I was given was based 100 % on protection. When the market dropped on XXXX XXXX my account was traded at 40 % below the market in some cases. The value of my account dropped by over XXXX. My advisor said that it was not his fault and this has never happened before. I should have never been sold a guarantee of protection if this was not true. My advisor should not have had me invested in XXXX 's that were not liquid and difficult to find a buyer in a down market. I feel Raymond James and my financial advisor are responsible for my loss by their negligence to understand the inherit risk of an investment plan based on Stop Losses, to properly inform me of the risk involved, to have invested my money in XXXX 's that were not very liquid, and to promise protection from a loss of greater than 10 % and yet I suffered losses of 40 % below the market. The response I 'm getting from Raymond James is not acceptable when they are supposed to stand behind their promise of protection and integrity. They empathize with my situation but say the trades were valid trades even though the orders were filled at prices lower than the sop amount limit was set for. 
