According to FINRA, Valence Montgomery Williams (CRD #1389729), a registered representative based in Brooklyn, New York, was fined $10,000 (deferred) and suspended for five months after consenting to findings that he exercised discretionary authority in customer accounts without first obtaining written authorization from the customers or approval from his member firm. Under FINRA rules, a broker must have explicit written permission from both the customer and the firm before making trading decisions on a customer's behalf. This requirement exists because discretionary trading gives the broker significant control over customer assets, and without proper authorization and oversight, customers are vulnerable to unauthorized or excessive trading. In addition to the unauthorized exercise of discretion, Williams mismarked trades as unsolicited when they were in fact solicited by him. Trade solicitation codes are a critical component of a firm's books and records because they indicate whether a trade was initiated by the customer or recommended by the broker. Accurately marking trades is essential for regulatory oversight and compliance because it affects how the firm supervises trading activity, how suitability determinations are assessed, and how customer complaints are evaluated. By marking solicited trades as unsolicited, Williams caused his firm to maintain inaccurate books and records and made it more difficult for the firm to properly supervise his trading recommendations. This combination of exercising unauthorized discretion and mismarking trade solicitation codes represents a pattern of operating outside proper supervisory controls. The five-month suspension, running from March 18 through August 17, 2024, along with the $10,000 deferred fine, reflects the seriousness of these combined violations. Investors should be aware that they have the right to know whether trades in their accounts are being made at their broker's discretion, and that accurate trade records are essential to protecting their interests. This matter was resolved through FINRA Case #2021072193101.