Page 1

DISCLOSURE REGARDING INDIVIDUAL ADVISOR AND PROFESSIONAL AWARDS RECOGNITION GIVEN TO

LEGEND FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC.® ADVISORY PERSONNEL Award listings, rankings and/or recognition by unaffiliated rating services and/or publications should not be construed by a client or prospective client as a guarantee that he/she will experience a certain level of results if Legend Financial Advisors, Inc.® (Legend) is engaged, or continues to be engaged, to provide investment advisory and/or financial planning services, nor should it be construed as a current or past endorsement of Legend by any of its clients. Award listings, rankings and/or recognition published by magazines, and others, often, but not always base their selections exclusively on information prepared and/or submitted by the recognized advisor and/or advisory firm. A more detailed disclosure of the criteria used for being selected for these award listings, rankings and/or recognition is included below:

INDIVIDUAL ADVISOR AND PROFESSIONAL AWARDS WORTH MAGAZINE’S “BEST FINANCIAL ADVISORS” AWARDS LISTINGS: Lou Stanasolovich was selected by Worth Magazine 12 consecutive times for their “Best Advisors” Award listings for the years including: 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. (To our knowledge, no list was published in 2000 and 2003). There were two lists in 2004. Lou Stanasolovich was one of four advisors selected 12 consecutive times to Worth Magazine’s list of advisors for the issues mentioned above. The four advisors include:

1. Lou Stanasolovich, Legend Financial Advisors, Inc.® 2. Norman Boone, Boone Financial Advisors 3. Marilyn Capelli Dimitroff, Capelli Financial Services, Inc. 4. Timothy Kochis, Kochis Fitz

In terms of the application process, Worth Magazine included an application process. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award in all years. This publication did not charge an application fee in any year. The magazine no longer exists and the magazine went through various ownership changes during the Award listing years. The magazine, in many instances, describes their selection process and criteria.

Page 2

1996 “The Best 200 Financial Advisers” Published by Worth Magazine Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in October, 1996. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award. This publication did not charge an application fee. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“Our (Worth Magazine) questionnaire requested a lot of information. Besides personal and client references, we (Worth Magazine) wanted data on education, job history, credentials and any record of disciplinary problems. We asked about methods of compensation—pinning down what percent of the adviser’s income is derived from asset management and commissions and how this is disclosed to clients. We also asked for total income within broad ranges.” “To gauge the scope of an adviser’s practice, we (Worth Magazine) asked him or her to tell us the highest and lowest fees charged in 1995 and the highest and lowest net worth of a client. We also wanted to know how many plans the nominee had drafted in recent years and what percentage of clients had been with him or her at least three years.” “We (Worth Magazine) asked for many documents, among them both parts of Form ADV, which almost all advisers or their firms file with the SEC. This form contains extensive disclosures on an adviser’s practice, including compensation, regulatory problems, and any arrangements with vendors of financial products. For instance, an adviser who has an affiliation with a securities firm or insurance company would disclose it on this form.” “We (Worth Magazine) asked to see samples of contracts with clients, looking for clarity. Most—but not all—advisers who manage money insist on an arbitration clause in which clients agree to bring any grievances to a private arbitration panel and sign away their right to sue. This usually limits damage awards. We also insisted on receiving a sample financial plan. Among other things, we wanted to know how easy it was to understand the goals, methodology, projections, and any charts or graphs contained in the plan.” “Finally, we (Worth Magazine) got an original credit report on each nominee, looking for judgments, liens, or outrageously large credit-card balances inconsistent with prudent financial management.” “We (Worth Magazine) contacted Better Business Bureaus and the advisers’ local courthouses to see if they’d been defendants in any relevant litigation. Databases of local newspapers were searched. We contacted state securities regulators and credentialing agencies to verify that the advisers were properly registered.”

Page 3

“With a few exceptions, we (Worth Magazine) knocked out those with less than ten years’ experience and those for whom planning seemed to be a minor part of a larger practice. But generally, there were a few hard-and-fast rules in our screening. The goal was to obtain as complete a picture of each candidate as possible.”

Award Criteria Summary:

• Background and Credit Checks

• Personal and Client References

• Education Data

• Credentials

• Record of Disciplinary Problems

• Methods of Compensation

• Review of Various Documents Including Form ADV, Samples of Contracts

• Review of Credit Report

• Contacted the Better Business Bureau 1997 “Best 250 Financial Advisers” Published by Worth Magazine Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in October, 1997. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award. This publication did not charge an application fee. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“To add to our list, we (Worth Magazine) accepted several hundred nominations from last year’s top advisers. New nominees underwent the same rigorous scrutiny as the incumbents, including a thorough background check and a review of samples of their work. We’ve also expanded our geographic coverage so that more of our readers will be able to select a planner near them.”

1998 “The 300 Best Financial Advisers” Published by Worth Magazine Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in September, 1998. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award. This publication did not charge an application fee. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

Page 4

“We (Worth Magazine) began our selection process this year by asking every person we know whom he or she would recommend as a financial planner. We mean this literally—we posted a notice in the magazine asking readers for nominations. We also turned to the experts: trade organizations such as the International Association for Financial Planning and the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors, as well as advisers who made our list in years past. If a recommendation came from a professional at a rival firm, we gave it more weight than on from somebody at the same firm.”

“This harvest of nominations yielded a large universe of names. Each nominee was asked to fill out a six-page questionnaire detailing his or her personal and professional background and credentials, the size and scope of his or her practice, and the way he or she gets paid. We (Worth Magazine) asked for both personal and professional references.”

“Among the questions we (Worth Magazine) asked our candidates was how long they had been in practice. We preferred to see ten years’ worth of experience, but an otherwise outstanding planner who had been practicing since only, say, 1990 could still make our final list. We also made sure the planners carried professional liability insurance. Most of our applicants keep around $1 million in coverage. To us, this is merely a sign of prudent business practice—one that helps us sleep a little easier.”

“Another important question for the planners: Have you ever been a defendant in a lawsuit? If so, what was the outcome? We (Worth Magazine) checked with the Lexis legal database and court records, but since lawsuits are a matter of public record, a planner should be willing to divulge this information without your having to research it. (We eliminated those planners who failed to list lawsuits they had faced.)”

“But if an adviser has paid a hefty judgment, or if there have been several serious suits, we’d (Worth Magazine) steer clear.”

“We (Worth Magazine) also asked about fee structures. We’ve always favored fee-only planners, who make their money from the direct billing of clients rather than from commissions on such things as insurance policies and mutual funds. Fee-Only planners accept either an up-front lump-sum fee or a percentage of the assets under management. We believe this is the best way to ensure that the planner avoids any potential conflicts when recommending financial products. Seventy-two percent of the professionals on our list are fee-only planners. “

“At the same time, we (Worth Magazine) do recognize that there are excellent, unbiased planners who accept commissions. We asked each planner who accepts commissions if he or she would tell clients the source and amount of any commission received from the products sold. We dropped any adviser unwilling to make this disclosure.”

“We (Worth Magazine) also asked for sample contracts and plans from each nominee.”

“We (Worth Magazine) wanted to see if the planner had listened carefully to the client’s needs and responded appropriately. Each plan listed the client’s goals; if the goal listed

Page 5

was “wealth accumulation” or something similar, that wasn’t good enough. Even if a client’s sole ambition is wealth accumulation, it’s the planner’s job to help identify what else needs to be done to ensure the client’s security.”

“Does the adviser follow prudent rules of investing?”

“Also, does the adviser offer choices? Is the plan clear and easily understood? Are the recommended steps easy to follow? Are there scenarios that account for differing future rates of inflation and market returns?”

“One important thing we (Worth Magazine) tried to determine, particularly with this glittering class of well-known advisers, was whether they had gotten too big to provide personal service.”

1999 “The Worth 250 Top Financial Advisers” Published by Worth Magazine Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in September, 1999. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award. This publication did not charge an application fee. The criteria for this award was not mentioned in the September, 1999 original magazine. 2001 “The Nation’s 250 Top Financial Advisers” Published by Worth Magazine Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in September, 2001. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award. This publication did not charge an application fee. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“Zeroing in on the Nation’s Best Financial advisers is a rigorous process. We (Worth Magazine) culled nominees from a vast pool of new recommendations and past members of our list. We then ask the candidates to complete an extensive questionnaire detailing their credentials, professional distinctions, and compensation structures. The advisers under scrutiny must also submit a financial plan and a letter of recommendation from a client or a professional peer outside their firm. We review all this from the client’s perspective: We scour each submission for clarity, completeness, and attention to

Page 6

individual needs. We also query nominees for their best ideas and recommendations, and we expect carefully reasoned and thoughtful responses.”

“Next we (Worth Magazine) check nominees’ backgrounds. Registered Investment Advisers must send us their Form ADVs, which describe the firms’ services and fee structures and the advisers’ qualifications (this is a great resource that all advisers should be willing to share with their clients). We verify credentials and make inquiries with industry associations, local courts, and the Lexis legal database.”

“Eighty-four percent of the advisers on our (Worth Magazine) list are fee-only planners: They earn a percentage of assets under management or negotiate fixed fees. The rest are commission-based planners who clearly outline their fee schedules to clients (something every above-board adviser should be willing to do).”

2002 “The 250 Best Financial Advisers In America” Published by Worth Magazine Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected for the July/August, 2002 issue. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award. This publication did not charge an application fee. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“The advisers on our (Worth Magazine) list are selected for their creativity, depth of knowledge, and dedication to their clients.”

“Selecting the best advisers from among the many standouts who counsel America’s wealthy is no easy task. We (Worth Magazine) start by accepting nominations from readers, industry associations, investment firms, and the advisers we know. Candidates are asked to complete and extensive survey detailing their backgrounds, professional designations, client-retention rates, and average portfolio returns. We also ask candidates for their best ideas about wealth management and study them carefully. Advisers in the running must submit a sample financial plan and two letters of recommendation. Registered investment advisers must also supply their Form ADVs, which describe their services, fee structures, and disciplinary histories (this is a document that any prospective client should review). We verify credentials with industry associations and check backgrounds using the Lexis legal database to search court records.”

“Most advisers on our (Worth Magazine) list carry the Certified Financial Planner, or CFP, designation (see story for details), but it’s by no means a requirement. A Certified Public Accountant, or CPA, who is also a Personal Financial Specialist, or PFS, should also be equipped to provide broad-based advice on investments, taxes, and other wealth management issues.”

Page 7

“All the advisers on our (Worth Magazine) list are taking new clients.”

“About 80 percent are Fee-Only advisers who earn a fixed fee or a percentage of assets under management. The rest accept fees and commissions.”

2004 “The Nation’s 100 Most Exclusive Wealth Advisors” Published by Robb Report Worth Magazine Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in January, 2004. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award. This publication did not charge an application fee. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“In setting out to uncover the country’s very best financial advisors, the editors of Worth set out upon a similar search for talented and trustworthy professionals who specialize in the needs of the very wealthy. In a survey of almost 1,000 highly recommended individual financial advisors, the editors uncovered 100 standouts who have built impressive careers guiding sophisticated clients with substantial means.”

2004 “The Nation’s 100 Most Exclusive Wealth Advisors” Published by Robb Report Worth Magazine Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in October, 2004. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award. This publication did not charge an application fee. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“To identify those who have exceeded our (Worth Magazine) expectations in this arena, the editors of Worth surveyed hundreds of financial professionals with the knowledge, skill, access, experience and credentials to effectively manage the affairs of America’s wealthiest individuals and their families. We also sought insight from those who know firsthand what makes a top financial advisor: Worth’s readers.”

“Those in the Top 100 most exclusive wealth advisors list were selected by Worth based on their knowledge and experience.”

2005 “The Top 100 Wealth Advisors”

Page 8

Published by Robb Report Worth Magazine Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in October, 2005. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award. This publication did not charge an application fee. The criteria for this award was not mentioned in the October, 2005 original magazine. 2006 “The Top 100 Wealth Advisors” Published by Worth Magazine Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in October, 2006. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award. This publication did not charge an application fee. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“Many want to know more about our (Worth Magazine) selection process: ‘With so many submissions from highly qualified wealth advisors, how exactly do you (the reader) determine who makes the list?’ they ask.”

“For the record, we (Worth Magazine) use the same methodology each year. While our weighting of the various criteria may change in response to market shifts or economic activity, the fundamental way we gather, organize and assess the information remains constant.”

“We (Worth Magazine) ask our readers to nominate those wealth advisors who have gone above and beyond the call of duty in meeting their clients’ needs. We also solicit nominations from private banks, wealth management and investment firms and industry associations. Nominated advisors then complete a detailed online questionnaire in which they provide their educational and professional credentials, work history, compensation structure, client retention rate and other background information. Next, we ask about areas of expertise, their approaches to working with new clients and about how they meet the unique needs of the affluent clientele they serve.”

“While we (Worth Magazine) give this information considerable weight in our selection process, we place the greatest importance upon each candidate’s ability to intelligently discuss the current investment climate, the markets and their strategies for success.”

Page 9

“It should be noted that those who regurgitate text from their marketing brochures or delegate the task of completing their applications to press officers or marketing personnel always fail to make the first cut. (Yes, it is that obvious.) Respondents must provide answers that are detailed, insightful and original. Their answers must also evidence a real working knowledge of the latest events and economic forces that impacting our (Worth Magazine) readers’ portfolios.”

“The final step is one verification. Worth’s editorial staff performs background checks; we (Worth Magazine) ask additional questions when necessary, and we invite the clients of those advisors on our list to offer their insights into why their advisor should make the cut.”

“The goal of this laborious process is to identify those who consistently set a standard of excellence for their entire wealth advisory industry. These individuals are smart, insightful and vigilant.”

2007 “The Top 100 Wealth Advisors” Published by Worth Magazine Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in October, 2007. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award. This publication did not charge an application fee. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“In anticipation of the inevitable questions about how we (Worth Magazine) choose the individuals we honor, please know that our (Worth Magazine) methodology is straightforward. While our weighing of the various criteria may change in response to market shifts or economic activity, the methodology we (Worth Magazine) use to gather, organize and analyze the information remains constant.” The process begins with an invitation to our readers to nominate those wealth advisors who have truly gone above and beyond the call of duty in meeting their clients’ needs. We (Worth Magazine) also solicit nominations from private banks, wealth management and investment firms and industry associations. Nominated advisors, and other who wish to participate, then complete a detailed online questionnaire in which they provide their educational and professional credentials, work history, compensation structure, client retention rate and other background information. We (Worth Magazine) then ask about areas of expertise, their approaches to working with new clients and how they meet the unique needs of the affluent clientele they serve.” “While we (Worth Magazine) give this information considerable weight in our selection process, we place the greatest importance upon each candidate’s ability to intelligently discuss the current investment climate, the markets and their strategies for success. At this point, the competition becomes fierce. Affluent investors pay their wealth advisors

Page 10

to be independent thinkers, and based on the spectrum of analyses we (Worth Magazine) read, many earn their keep. This year, very few agreed on the best way to invest in a global market where phenomenal growth—and risk—can be found offshore, and dramatic market swings have become daily events. Even fewer claimed that their strategies were foolproof. Many, however, explained their insights clearly, concisely and with conviction—exactly how they should communicate with their clients.” Following our (Worth Magazine) compilation of a preliminary list, the final step in the selection process is one of verification. Worth’s editorial staff confirms, to the extent possible, that the information advisors provide is accurate and truthful. We (Worth Magazine) run background checks and occasionally ask additional questions of both advisors and their clients. By the time this step is completed, spring is just a memory and the dog days of summer are upon us. With deadlines approaching, we finalize our list, confident in the choices we’ve (Worth Magazine) made.” “The completion this year was extremely tough. But that’s how it should be. Wealth management is not an easy profession—the men and women who guide their clients through life’s triumphs and challenges must be smart, resilient, decisive and dedicated. Those honored in the following pages embody all these qualities and more. We (Worth Magazine) salute them”

2008 “The Top 100 Wealth Advisors” Published by Worth Magazine Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in 2008. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award. This publication did not charge an application fee. The criteria for this award was not mentioned in the 2008 original magazine. MEDICAL ECONOMICS MAGAZINE’S “THE BEST FINANCIAL ADVISORS FOR DOCTORS IN AMERICA”: Applicants for the Medical Economics’ “Best Financial Advisors for Doctors” list have historically been required to complete an extensive questionnaire listing credentials, educational background, noteworthy professional achievements, specific areas of expertise, and percentage of physician clients. Candidates were selected for the list based upon these qualifications, in addition to client and peer references, strong recommendations from physicians, an extensive background check, and the applicant’s knowledge and experience in the financial advisory field. The majority of this information is provided by the advisor. Medical Economics also weighs the conduct of the applicant’s firm and how the firm charges

Page 11

for their services, taking special interest in Fee-Only advisors that are inclined to provide objective and unbiased advice, operating without a conflict of interest. Award years with an application fee include: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. Award years without application fees include: 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award in all years. Lou Stanasolovich was selected by Medical Economics Magazine 13 times for their “Best Financial Advisors for Doctors in America” Award listings for the years including: 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. Jim Holtzman was also selected nine times for this award listing for the years including: 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. The 2008 listing was also republished in the Medical Economics September 2009 issue. 1998 “The 120 Best Financial Advisers for Doctors” Published by Medical Economics Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in July, 1998. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“To find out, we (Medical Economics) invited close to 100 heads of financial planning professional organization chapters as well as other experts to recommend top advisers. Then, we asked each nominee to fill out an extensive questionnaire that inquired about education, experience, professional accomplishments, areas of expertise, practice size and scope, highest and lowest net worth of clients, and compensation method. We also requested a sample financial plan and a copy of the adviser’s Form ADV, which is filed with the SEC and describes professional background and payment methods.” “Since the personal-finance field is complex and rapidly changing, we (Medical Economics) emphasized advanced and continuing education (required by some credentialing organizations). Experience counts, so we also looked for advisers who’ve spent at least 10 years directly advising clients—not simply working in the financial industry. Our list does, however, include some advisers who have a few years’ less experience but stand apart from the crowd for other reasons.” “We (Medical Economics) evaluated the sample financial plans to see whether each adviser was careful and did a comprehensive job. Did he or she provide well-thought-out recommendations, or just pad a binder with generic information?” “Our (Medical Economics) eyes lit up when we noted advisers whose clients include physicians and other high-income professionals. We felt that an understanding of doctors’ salary issues, medical-school debts, and other health-industry concerns would help planners have insightful advice. Some planners we chose serve on hospital boards, and a number have physician family members.”

Page 12

“We (Medical Economics) also got a sense of a planner’s clientele, to see whether you’d be a good fit. A planner with no clients having over $1 million net worth may lack experience with doctors who become high earners. Even if you (the reader) currently have little money and high debt, you might eventually outgrow such a planner.” “Most of the advisers on our (Medical Economics) list work on a Fee-Only basis. This means they have no built-in incentive to sell you (the reader) specific financial products, because they charge an hourly rate, a flat fee, a retainer fee, or a percentage of the assets they invest for you. But we don’t consider commissions inherently evil—as long as you know the adviser receives them. Many top advisers charge fees for some services, such as planning, but earn commissions from age services or insurance sales. However, we shied away from planners whose sole income is from commissions. Too much sales pressure, we felt.” “We (Medical Economics) use subjective judgement, too. We questioned the diligence of advisers whose brochures are full of spelling errors.”

1999 “Best Financial Advisors for Doctors” Published by Medical Economics Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in 1999. The criteria for this award was not mentioned in the original magazine.

2000 “The 150 Best Financial Advisers for Doctors” Published by Medical Economics Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in August, 2000. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“Our (Medical Economics) preliminary list of candidates included those who made the original list, as well as advisers recommended by state and regional accounting and financial planning organizations. We also game considerable weight to your nominations, which we’d solicited in these pages earlier this year.” “Next, we (Medical Economics) asked all the nominees to fill out an extensive questionnaire covering educational background, credentials, experience, firm size, percentage of doctor clients, affiliations with medical organizations, and noteworthy professional achievements. We also requested a sample financial plan from each person, to get a feel for the depth and customization of advice given to clients. And we asked for a copy of each adviser’s Form ADV, which is filed with the SEC and describes professional background and payment method.”

Page 13

“To assure that advisers are keeping abreast of laws and developments that could affect a financial plan, we (Medical Economics) looked for advanced credentials and continuing education. We also limited our selection to planner who had worked directly with clients for at least 10 years. With that many years in the business, an adviser would have experienced various market conditions and have watched clients’ financial pictures evolve over time.” “We (Medical Economics) also homed in on advisers with physician clients and familiarity with the health care field. The more experience a planner had with physician concerns, managed care’s salary impact, and medical school debt, the better. For similar reasons, we limited ourselves to planners who have managed a substantial amount of money and assisted high-income clients.” “We (Medical Economics) didn’t include advisers who work solely on commission, since that could give them an incentive to push a particular financial product. Many of those on our (Medical Economics) list operate on a Fee-Only basis, so the amount you (the reader) pay doesn’t depend on how you invest. Some, though, still earn commissions for certain services, such as insurance sales.” “We (Medical Economics) limited our picks to one adviser per firm.”

2002 “The 150 Best Financial Advisers for Doctors” Published by Medical Economics Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in December, 2002. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“This year, we (Medical Economics) began the selection process by asking you, our readers, to recommend financial advisers you’ve found knowledgeable and insightful. Many of you responded, describing how an adviser had helped you turn around a sticky financial situation or had pointed you toward a sensible path.” “We (Medical Economics) then invited your (the reader) nominees to take part in our rigorous screening process. Next, we reevaluated candidates from our last list (published in the Aug. 7, 2000 issue) and sought new recommendations from national and regional financial planning organizations.” “Every candidate filled out an extensive questionnaire covering his or her credentials, educational background, experience, percentage of doctor clients, size of the firm, affiliations with medical organizations, and noteworthy professional achievement. To evaluate the depth and type of advice they give clients, we (Medical Economics) reviewed a sample plan from each individual. We also looked at each adviser’s Form ADV, which is filed with the SEC and describes professional background and payment methods.”

Page 14

“To whittle the field of qualified candidates, we (Medical Economics) favored those recommended by our readers, and nominees whose interests were more focused on the health care profession. We eliminated advisers who are paid strictly by commission, since we believe that diminishes your (the reader) chances of getting unbiased advice. And to allow us to include as many choices as possible in each geographical area, we made the tough decision to include only one adviser per firm, even though many firms listed have several partners who might qualify for inclusion.” “Many of the advisers we (Medical Economics) chose have specialized financial planning credentials.” “Many advisers require that you (the reader) invest a minimum amount with their firm if you want them to manage your investments, and we’ve (Medical Economics) listed those minimum requirements. However, almost all the advisers on our list will draw up a financial plan or consult with you for an hourly or flat fee.”

2004 “The 150 Best Financial Advisers for Doctors” Published by Medical Economics Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in November, 2004. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“We’ve (Medical Economics) taken on the task for you (the reader), evaluating hundreds of candidates and compiling a list of the 150 best financial advisers for doctors. We started several months ago, with an open call asking you, our readers, for recommendations.” “We (Medical Economics) contacted those advisers and asked them to fill out questionnaires. We did the same with advisers recommended to us by other financial planners; those who appeared on our previous Best Advisers list (published in out Dec. 9, 2002 issue); and those who learned of our exclusive list and wanted to make us aware of their own qualifications. The questionnaire covered credentials, education, areas of expertise, total assets under management, percentage of physician clients, noteworthy professional achievements, and affiliations with medical organizations.” “Because our (Medical Economics) initial screening left us with a large number of advisers with strong qualifications, we favored those advisers who had been recommended to us by physicians, and those who limit the amount of compensation they earn from commissions. We believe that the smaller the percentage of commission-based revenue, the greater your (the reader) changes of receiving unbiased advice. In fact, many of the advisers who made our list are “Fee-Only,” meaning they earn no money from commissions.” “In a few cases, we (Medical Economics) received multiple nominations from the same firm. However, to allow us the greatest geographic reach possible, we made the difficult decision

Page 15

to limit the list to one adviser per firm, even though many of the firms have several partners who qualify.” “And, finally, we (Medical Economics) plugged each of the adviser’s names into the NASD and SEC databases, to be sure they hadn’t been found guilty of malfeasance. It’s possible that in some instances, a state securities office may have a complaint against a planner; but, we didn’t check down to that level.” “Nearly all of the advisers we (Medical Economics) chose have specialized financial planning credentials.” “Most advisers on our (Medical Economics) list will manage your (the reader) portfolio if you’d like, but they may require you to invest a minimum amount of money with them. Some ask for as much as $1 million, although many are flexible and will take less if you’re serious about investing. We made a conscious effort, however, to include advisers who have modest minimums or none at all.”

2006 “Best Financial Advisors for Doctors” Published by Medical Economics Award Criteria Summary: James J. Holtzman was selected in 2006. The criteria for this award was not mentioned in the original magazine. 2008 “The 150 Best Financial Advisers for Doctors” Published by Medical Economics Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich and James J. Holtzman were selected in 2008. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“To help you (the reader) get control of your financial future, Medical Economics offers our annual exclusive list of the 150 Best Financial Advisers for Doctors.” “We (Medical Economics) received submissions from excellent advisers across the country, in addition to your (the reader) nominations of advisers whom you recommend to friends and colleagues. From these we assembled a “short” list of hundreds of very strong candidates.” “To make our (Medical Economics) final determinations, considered the following criteria:” “Knowledge and Experience: Brainpower and wisdom are mandatory, and we (Medical Economics) looked for advisers with depth of knowledge about a broad range of financial

Page 16

issues. Credentials count, because they show a background of knowledge. Additionally, retaining some certifications (CFP—Certified Financial Planner—for example) requires continuing education. This encourages the adviser to keep up-to-date with financial developments and products.” “We (Medical Economics) also gave an extra nod to those who specialize in physician business or the medical field.” “We (Medical Economics) also asked for a minimum of 10 years of experience, although there are some exceptions. Life holds unexpected situations—from bear markets to bank collapses—and so it’s beneficial to rely on someone who has already weathered similar storms.” “Geography: The advisers selected represent a broad geographic range. In addition, many advisers operate across state line or across long distances.” “Fee Arrangements: Advisers charge for their services in various ways, including Fee-Only and commission. While there are some outstanding advisers who are fully commission-based, for this list we (Medical Economics) steered clear of commission-only advisers. Investors can expect more objective advice when there is no motivation to direct you (the reader) toward one product over another.”

2010 “Best Financial Advisers for Doctors” Published by Medical Economics Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich and James J. Holtzman were selected in November, 2010. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“How we (Medical Economics) chose our list:” “We (Medical Economics) based inclusion on the following criteria:” “Knowledge and experience—Brainpower and wisdom are mandatory, and we (Medical Economics) looked for advisers with depth knowledge about a broad range of financial issues. Credential count, because they show a background of knowledge. Additionally, retaining some certifications (CFP®, Certified Financial Planner, for example) requires continuing education to keep up with financial developments and products. However, we included advisers without credentials based of their years of experience in financial planning.” “The advisers typically have at least 10 years of professional experience.” “Geography—The advisers represent a broad geographic range. In addition, many advisers operate across state lines or across long distances.”

Page 17

“Fee arrangements—Advisers charge for their services in various ways, including Fee-Only and commission.” “Minimum portfolio—Many well-established advisers require a minimum amount of money under their management.” “Good standing—We (Medical Economics) checked each applicant against the national databases of the Securities and Exchange Commissions (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to confirm that he or she has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing on a national level.”

2011 “Best Financial Advisers for Doctors” Published by Medical Economics Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich and James J. Holtzman were selected in November, 2011. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“Here are some of the criteria we (Medical Economics) studied to help physician make the best possible decision.” “Good standing: We (Medical Economics) received submissions from hundreds of advisers across the nation. We checked each one against the national databases of the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to determine that they had not been found guilty of any wrongdoing on a national level.” “Background: Each adviser completes an extensive questionnaire covering his or her credentials, experience, membership in professional groups, fee arrangements and minimum portfolio requirements.” “Qualifications: With some exceptions, the advisers we (Medical Economics) chose have a minimum of 10 years experience. Many advisers have specialized financial planning credentials.” “Fee arrangements: Fee-Only and commission are the main ways advisers charge for their services. We’ve included both in this survey.” “Minimum portfolio: Some advisers on our (Medical Economics) list may require that you invest a minimum amount of money, often as much as $1 million, if you (the reader) want them to manage your investments.”

2012 “Best Financial Advisers for Doctors”

Page 18

Published by Medical Economics Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich and James J. Holtzman were selected in November, 2012. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“Here are some of the criteria we (Medical Economics) studied to help doctors make the best possible decision in choosing a financial adviser.” “Qualifications: Many advisers have specialized financial planning credentials.” “Good standing: We (Medical Economics) received submissions from advisers across the nation. We checked each one against the national databases of the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to determine that they had not been found guilty of any wrongdoing on a national level.” “Fee arrangements: Fee-only and commission are the main ways advisers charge for their services. We (Medical Economics) included both in this survey.” “Minimum portfolio: Some advisers on our (Medical Economics) list may require that you (the reader) invest a minimum amount of money, often as much as $1 million, if you want them to manage your investments.”

2013 “Best Financial Advisers for Doctors” Published by Medical Economics Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich and James J. Holtzman were selected in November, 2013. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“Here are some of the criteria we (Medical Economics) studied to help doctors make the best possible decision when choosing a financial advisor.” “Good standing: The majority of advisers in this guide have at least 10 years of experience and many have worked extensively, if not exclusively, with doctors. Background screening for each of the advisers in this guide were conducted through the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority databases. The government also recommends that you (the reader) screen potential advisers through state securities regulators, or local consumer and investment groups.” “Minimum portfolio: Do you (the reader) want to manage your money yourself or let your adviser handle it? Most advisers will do either, at your preference. While many advisers require a minimum amount of investment assets—often as high as $1 million—this guide focuses on advisers with smaller assets.”

Page 19

“Qualifications: Many advisers have specialized financial planning credentials.” “Fee arrangements: Fee-Only and commission are the main ways advisers charge for their services. We’ve (Medical Economics) included both arrangements in this guide.”

2014 “Best Financial Advisers for Doctors” Published by Medical Economics Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich and James J. Holtzman were selected in November, 2014. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“A state-by-state guide to financial professionals who specialize in serving physicians.” “We’ve (Medical Economics) put together this list of the best financial advisers for doctors. Each candidate filled out an extensive questionnaire about his or her credentials, experience, educational backgrounds, company size, minimum portfolio requirements and noteworthy professional achievements.” “Most advisers on our (Medical Economics) list have at least 10 years of experience and have worked extensively with doctors.” “Here are some of the criteria we (Medical Economics) studied to help doctors make the best possible decision in choosing a financial adviser.” “Qualifications: Many advisers have specialized financial planning credentials. Here’s what the initials mean: Certified Financial Planner (CFP) designates comprehensive financial planning expertise. Certified Public Accountant (CPA) indicates expertise in tax issues. Personal Financial Specialist (PFS) is used by CPAs who specialize in financial planning. Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designates someone who passed rigorous exams on investments and portfolio management given by the Association for Investment Management and Research. Chartered Financial Consultant (ChFC) indicates a focus on general financial planning. And CLU (Chartered Life Underwriters) denotes someone who specializes in insurance.” “Good standing: We (Medical Economics) receive submissions from advisers across the nation. We checked each one against the national databases of the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to determine that they hadn’t been found guilty of any wrongdoing on a national level.” “Fee arrangements: It can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $10,000 to develop a realistic financial plan depending on your (the reader) individual situation. Fee-Only and commission are the main ways advisers charge for their services. We’ve (Medical Economics) included both in this survey. Fee-Only advisers earn a percentage of the money they manage for you. (Fees typically range from .75% to 1.5%, depending on the

Page 20

amount invested.) Commission arrangements mean the adviser earns payment when you invest in mutual funds with a load (sales charge). Some advisers charge on a Fee-Only basis for investments, but if they also sell insurance products (which often are part of a comprehensive financial plan), they may earn a commission.” “Minimum portfolio: Some advisers on our (Medical Economics) list may require that you (the reader) invest a minimum amount of money, often as much as $1 million, if you want them to manage your investments. Others have no such requirement but might charge an annual fee. We’ve included advisers who have modest minimums or none at all. You should always ask what fees are involved to manage your account.”

2015 “Best Financial Advisers for Doctors” Published by Medical Economics Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich and James J. Holtzman were selected in November, 2015. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“Medical Economics 2015 Best Financial Advisers paid Listing Advertising Supplement is written and published by Advanstar Communications Inc. (“Publisher”) as a source of information concerning individual financial advisers (“Advisers”), for use by physicians, healthcare professionals, and the public. The paid listing information supplied in this Medical Economics 2015 Best Financial Advisers Advertising Supplement is provided only as a service to its Subscribers. The Medical Economics 2015 Best Financial Advisers Advertising Supplement does not contain sufficient information to verify the listed Advisers’ credentials but it does offer the public, physicians, hospitals, managed care organizations, and other healthcare organizations general information pertaining to the listed Advisers. Adviser data contained in the Medical Economics 2015 Best Financial Adviser Advertising Supplement is self-reported by each Adviser. Publisher has attempted to confirm with certain regulatory authorities that no disciplinary actions or proceedings against the Adviser in this Medical Economics 2015 Best Financial Advisers Advertising Supplement were active, recorded or pending at the time of publication. References to any specific Adviser in this Medical Economics 2015 Best Financial Advisers Advertising Supplement does not imply or constitute an endorsement, recommendation, or favoring of such Adviser by the Publisher or any of its affiliates. The Publisher does not warrant the completeness or accuracy of any information, product, service, or process referred to in this Medical Economics 2015 Best Financial Advisers Advertising Supplement, nor does the Publisher assume any liability stemming from the use of any information contained therein.” “Here are some of the criteria we (Medical Economics) studied to help doctors make the best possible decision in choosing a financial adviser.” “Qualifications: Many advisers have specialized financial planning credentials. Here’s what the initials mean: Certified Financial Planner (CFP) designates comprehensive financial planning expertise. Certified Public Accountant (CPA) indicates expertise in tax

Page 21

issues. Personal Financial Specialist (PFS) is used by CPAs who specialize in financial planning. Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designates someone who passed rigorous exams on investments and portfolio management given by the Association for Investment Management and Research. Chartered Financial Consultant (ChFC) indicates a focus on general financial planning. And CLU (Chartered Life Underwriters) denotes someone who specializes in insurance.” “Good standing: We (Medical Economics) received submissions from advisers across the nation. We checked each one against the national databases of the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to ensure that they had not been found guilty of any wrongdoing on a national level.” “Fee arrangement: Adviser say it can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $10,000 to develop a unique financial plan, depending on your individual situation. Fee-Only and commission are the main ways advisers charge for their services. We’ve (Medical Economics) included both in this survey. Fee-Only advisers earn a percentage of the money they manage for you. (Fees typically range from .75% to 1.5%, depending on the amount under management).” “Commission arrangements mean the adviser earns payment when you (the reader) invest in mutual funds with a load (sales charge). Some advisers charge Fee-Only for investments, but if they also sell insurance products (which is often part of a comprehensive financial plan,) they may earn a commission on the sale.” “Minimum portfolio: Some advisers on our (Medical Economics) list may require that you invest a minimum amount of money, often $1 million or more, if you (the reader) want them to manage your investments. Others have no such requirement but might charge a minimum annual fee. We’ve included advisers who have modest minimums or none at all. You should always ask what fees are involved to manage your account.”

2016 “Financial Advisers for Doctors” Published by Medical Economics Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich and James J. Holtzman were selected in November, 2016. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“2016 Advisers for Doctors”

2017 “Professional Services Guide” Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich and James J. Holtzman were selected in December, 2017. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

Page 22

“Medical Economics’ Professional Services Guide is meant to connect financial professionals who specialize in working with healthcare professionals and our valued readers. These advisers have the experience of working with doctors to achieve their financial goals while understanding the unique situations physicians find themselves in throughout their careers.”

MUTUAL FUNDS’ “100 GREAT FINANCIAL PLANNERS”: Mutual Funds Magazine’s list of the “100 Great Financial Planners” was published for only two years, 2001 and 2002 with the publication being discontinued. Lou Stanasolovich was selected two times for the years, 2001 and 2002. This publication did not charge an application fee in any year. 2001 “100 Great Financial Planners” Published by Mutual Funds Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in October, 2001. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“How we (Mutual Funds Magazine) picked them” “This elite roster is the result of thousands of hours of reporting. Our (Mutual Funds Magazine) goal: to find champion financial planners, those who pursue excellence and go beyond the call of duty to serve clients. You (the reader) can’t tell a great planner by credentials alone. Our team interviewed hundreds of experts nationwide, from money management firms, consulting firms, fund companies, brokerages, universities, and elsewhere. We (Mutual Funds Magazine) asked point-blank: Who are the best of the best? To whom would you bring your own money? That was a start. Assisted by research company Thomson Financial, we contacted state regulators and examined SEC filings as a double-check on quality. (Customer complaints, for example, might raise a red flag.) And we talked to planners’ colleagues, clients, and rivals for more insight. To create our final list, we considered other factors—account minimums, areas of specialization, and methods of compensation, for example—to ensure a diverse selection.”

2002 “100 Great Financial Planners” Published by Mutual Funds Award Criteria Summary:

Page 23

Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in September, 2002. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“How do we (Mutual Funds Magazine) put together such an elite list? By tapping hundreds of sources, from fund managers and estate lawyers to consultants and professors—not to mention clients.” “That’s a start. Then we (Mutual Funds Magazine) vet candidates with the SEC, NASD, and CFP Board as a double, and often triple, check.”

DENTAL PRACTICE REPORT MAGAZINE’S “TOP FINANCIAL ADVISERS FOR DENTISTS”: For the Dental Practice Report Magazine’s “Top Financial Advisers for Dentists”, Jim Holtzman and Lou Stanasolovich were all selected by the publication for the following years: 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016. For all years selected for this award, Legend paid an application fee to be eligible to be included on the list. For all years, Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award in all years and signed a contract which included questions such as individual advisor name and Legend’s contact information, years of experience, minimum portfolio requirements, certifications and association memberships. In May 2019, Legend contacted MultiMedia Healthcare, the present owner of Dental Practice Report Magazine, for additional disclosure information about the Dental Practice Report Magazine’s “Top Financial Advisers for Dentists” awards for the years that Legend was selected. MultiMedia Healthcare informed Legend in an E-mail dated May 14, 2019 that the Dental Practice Report is now defunct. Also, Multimedia Healthcare informed Legend of the following awards criteria from an old press release that states the following: “Among the standards which financial firms must meet include having specialized financial planning credentials, such as Certified Financial Planner (CFP) that designates comprehensive financial planning expertise or other certifications. Firms must also be in good standing with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and are checked against their national databases to determine that they have not been found guilty of any wrongdoing on a national level.” 2011 “Best Financial Advisers for Dentists” Published by Dental Practice Report Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich and James J. Holtzman were selected in April, 2011. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“How we (Dental Practice Report Magazine) chose our list:”

Page 24

“We (Dental Practice Report Magazine) based inclusion on the following criteria:” “Knowledge and experience—Brainpower and wisdom are mandatory, we (Dental Practice Report Magazine) looked for advisers with depth of knowledge about a broad range of financial issues. Credentials count, because they show a background of knowledge. Additionally, retaining some certifications (CFP, for example) requires continuing education.” “However, we (Dental Practice Report Magazine) included advisers without credentials based on their years of experience in financial planning.” “The advisers typically have at least 10 years of professional experience.” “Geography—The advisers represent a broad geographic range. In addition, many advisers operate across state lines or across long distances.” “Fee arrangements—Advisers charge for their services in various ways, including Fee-Only and commission.” “Minimum portfolio—Many well-established advisers require a minimum amount of money under their management.” “Most advisers on our (Dental Practice Report Magazine) list have minimum portfolio requirements of $1 million or less, or are flexible about their minimum. However, consideration was given to advisers whose minimum portfolio is about $1 million.” “Good standing—We (Dental Practice Report Magazine) checked each adviser against databases in the Securities and Exchange Commission, Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority to confirm that the advisers listed in this guide have no disciplinary action against them on a national level.” Special Note: Legend found some of the above information strange. It appears that Dental Practice Report copied the criteria from Medical Economics Magazine.

2012 “Best Financial Advisers for Dentists” Published by Dental Practice Report Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich and James J. Holtzman were selected in April, 2012. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“We’ve (Dental Practice Report Magazine) assembled this list of the Best Financial Advisers for Dentists. Every candidate filled out an extensive questionnaire covering his or her credentials, educational background, experience, size of the firm, minimum portfolio requirements and noteworthy professional achievements.”

Page 25

“Most advisers on our (Dental Practice Report Magazine) list have at least 10 years of experience and most have worked extensively with dentists. We also checked out each adviser’s background.” “Here are some of the criteria we (Dental Practice Report Magazine) studied to help dentists make the best possible decision in choosing a financial adviser.” “Qualifications—Many advisers have specialized financial planning credentials.” “Good standing—We (Dental Practice Report Magazine) received submissions from advisers across the nation. We checked each one against the national databases of the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to determine that they had not been found guilty of any wrongdoing on a national level.” “Fee arrangements—Fee-Only and commission are the main ways advisers charge for their services. We’ve (Dental Practice Report Magazine) included both in this survey.” “Minimum portfolio—Some advisers on our (Dental Practice Report Magazine) list may require that you (the reader) invest a minimum amount of money, often as much $1 million, if you want them to manage your investments. Others have no such requirement but might charge a minimum annual fee. We’ve (Dental Practice Report Magazine) tried to include advisers who have modest minimums or none at all.” Special Note: Legend found some of the above information strange. It appears that Dental Practice Report copied the criteria from Medical Economics Magazine.

2014 “Best Financial Advisers for Dentists” Published by Dental Practice Report Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich and James J. Holtzman were selected in 2014. The criteria for this award was not mentioned in the original magazine. 2015 “Best Financial Advisers for Dentists” Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich and James J. Holtzman were selected in 2015. The criteria for this award was not mentioned in the original magazine. 2016 “Best Financial Advisers for Dentists”

Page 26

Published by Dental Practice Report Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich and James J. Holtzman were selected in June, 2016. The criteria for this award was not mentioned in the original magazine. The following disclosure information is directly from the Dental Practice Report Awards Application (2016):

STANDARDS FOR INCLUSION Legend applied for the award in the Financial Advisers for Dentists Directory. This award is subject to review based on the following criteria. In general, we (Dental Practice Report Magazine) will let you (Legend) know at the end of our review process if your application has met the Standards for Inclusion and you would not remit payment until that time. The Financial Advisers for Dentists Directory will list these adviser criteria, which will further engage readers and reinforce the credibility of the information. Current membership in one of the sponsoring associations is a preference, but not required for inclusion into the supplement (i.e., FPA, NAPFA, NSCHBC).

FINANCIAL PLANNING’S INFLUENCER AWARD: Lou Stanasolovich was selected by Financial Planning Magazine for their “Influencer” Award under the “Wealth Creator” category for 2010. This publication did not charge an application fee. However, applicants were requested to complete an application. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award. Financial Planning’s “Influencer Award” recognizes the six practitioners who have made significant contributions to the financial planning profession, from developing innovative portfolio and practice-management solutions to providing leadership for the advisory community. The award encourages advisors to act as teachers, mentors, and coaches to their clients to help them clarify and achieve their own financial and life goals. Candidates are awarded in six categories. The categories are:

1. Industry Contributor Award: An advisor who has recently made extraordinary contributions to the financial planning profession.

2. Practice Management Award: An advisor who has introduced innovative practice-management ideas and shared them with the industry.

3. Tech Innovator Award: An advisor who has devised ingenious technology best practices and shared them with the industry.

4. Wealth Creator Award: An advisor who has contributed significantly to portfolio management through portfolio management best practices.

Page 27

5. Legacy Builder Award: An advisor who has advanced the industry’s training of the next generation of professionals.

6. Lifetime Achievement Award: An advisor who, over the course of his or her career, has repeatedly changed financial planning for the better.

Eligible nominees must be financial planners currently or formerly active in an independent advisory practice or RIA. Candidates were selected on their valuable service to one another. 2010 “Influencers” Award Published by Financial Planning Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in November, 2010. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“We (Financial Planning Magazine) wanted to do something different—to celebrate the essence of financial planning, which encouraged advisors to act as teachers, mentors and coaches to their clients—to help them clarify and achieve their own financial goals.” “Please bear in mind that these awards are to advisors, for advisors, and nominated by advisors. You have to be nominated to win!”

INVESTOPEDIA “INVESTOPEDIA 100”: Lou Stanasolovich and Jim Holtzman were selected by Investopedia for their “Investopedia 100” Award for the year 2018. This online publication did not charge an application fee. All applicants were required to submit an application. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award for Lou Stanasolovich and Jim Holtzman. It is an award recognizing the top 100 influential financial advisors in the country. 2018 “Investopedia 100” Published by Investopedia Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich and James J. Holtzman were selected in 2018, the inaugural year for this list. This publication did not charge an application fee. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the Website for 2018. Please Note that the criteria has been changed on their Website for 2019. We have included the criteria for both years although, Legend’s advisors were only selected for 2018:

Page 28

2019 Criteria Listed On Investopedia’s Website:

“In developing our ranking, we (Investopedia) identified advisors across the country who have demonstrated a top-of-the-industry ability to reach the largest and most relevant financial and investing audience, as measured by the impact and quality of their published work, public appearances, and online following.” “We (Investopedia) also asked every advisor who applied to nominate the advisors who they deemed influential. Multiple nominations from industry peers weighed heavily into our (Investopedia) scoring.” “Finally, all applicants were reviewed by our (Investopedia) editorial team to ensure that their published work and public appearances were in the spirit of financial education, and served to help their clients and promote best practices across the industry.” “The advisors featured in our (Investopedia) ranking applied for consideration, or were nominated by their peers. We (Investopedia) know there are thousands of influential advisors who do not appear on our list. Each year, we (Investopedia) try to broaden our (Investopedia) outreach to make our list even more inclusive, and we (Investopedia) will continue to do so in the years to come.” “At Investopedia, we (Investopedia) strive to promote important conversations among investors and financial professionals of all levels, everywhere. Financial education is a never-ending journey that requires constant exploration, examination and discourse. The Investopedia 100 is another opportunity for us (Investopedia) to celebrate the enormous value that advisors contribute to that journey.” “This list is our (Investopedia) salute to advisors who are the guides of that journey and contribute their industry insights as widely and unselfishly as they can.”

2018 Criteria (That Previously Was) Listed On Investopedia’s Website:

“Investopedia’s data science and editorial teams reviewed the applications of hundreds of financial advisors to measure their impact and reach across Twitter, LinkedIn, personal and company blogs, and online publishers. We (Investopedia) developed a proprietary ranking based on the strength of each applicant’s page rankings, followers, and citations of their work by other advisors, consumers and the financial media. Our (Investopedia) analysis seeks to identify not only the advisors with the largest followings, but also those who have dedicated their time to educating investors around the world.” “The Investopedia 100 seeks to measure influence. We (Investopedia) have endeavored to quantify the impact that our (Investopedia) advisors have on their clients and the broader financial community. Influence isn’t about being popular. It’s about helping others (although being popular helps if one’s popularity is tied to the mission of educating investors).” “In developing our (Investopedia) list, Investopedia’s data sciences and editorial teams identified advisors across the country who are best able to engage with their audience across platforms. We (Investopedia) measured our applicants’ reach, frequency of posting, and amplification.”

Page 29

Investopedia Website Sources: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-advisor/celebrating-most-influential-advisors-2018/ https://www.investopedia.com/top-100-financial-advisors/

FINANCIAL PLANNING’S “MOVERS & SHAKERS”: Published by Financial Planning Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected by Financial Planning Magazine for their “Movers & Shakers” Award for 2006. This publication did not charge an application fee. Awardees of the “Movers & Shakers” title are selected based upon the voting of Financial Planning Magazine subscribers on the magazine’s Website at www.FinancialPlanning.com. An application was completed to be eligible to be nominated. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award. The nominees for the honor are chosen based on nominations and endorsements from other industry colleagues as well as comments and recommendations from an Advisory Board of professionals familiar with the financial planning industry, focusing mainly on the individuals who have contributed the most to advancing the profession of financial planning and are effectively shaping its future. 2006 “Movers & Shakers” Award Published by Financial Planning Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in 2006. The criteria for this award was not mentioned in the original magazine. INVESTMENT ADVISOR’S “THE IA 25”: Published by Investment Advisor Award Criteria Summary: Lou Stanasolovich was selected by Investment Advisor Magazine for their “The IA 25” List for the years including: 2004, 2006, 2007. This publication did not charge an application fee in any year. Legend did not submit an application for this award in all years. Investment Advisor’s list of “The IA 25” is a subjective listing chosen by the IA editorial staff with input from the magazine’s contributors and readers. Candidates were selected without any type of application submission to the publication and are viewed as being those who are “the most influential people in and around the financial planning profession” and who affect change in the industry. The qualifications are generally unknown and may or may not change

Page 30

on a regular basis depending upon the criteria set forth at that time by the publication. 2004 “The IA 25” Published by Investment Advisor Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in May, 2004. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“But we have included more regulatory and oversight folks, reflecting the higher profile of such individuals these days. Also, we included leaders of the custodial and clearing firms that have become a more important part of the independent advisor’s business model.” “As with all such subjective lists (chosen by the IA editorial staff with input from the magazine’s contributors and readers).”

2006 “The IA 25” Published by Investment Advisor Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in May, 2006. The criteria for this award was not mentioned in the May, 2006 original magazine. 2007 “The IA 25” Published by Investment Advisor Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in February, 2007. The criteria for this award was not mentioned in the February, 2007 original magazine. PITTSBURGH MAGAZINE’S “FIVE STAR WEALTH MANAGERS” AWARD: Lou Stanasolovich was selected by Pittsburgh Magazine for their “Five Star Wealth Managers” Award listings for the years including: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2016. Jim Holtzman was also selected for this award listing for the years including: 2009, 2013, 2016. Legend only participated in their “Free Award” listings. Pittsburgh Magazine also had “Paid For” Advertisement options. This publication did not charge an application fee in any year. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award in all years. Pittsburgh Magazine’s “Five Star Wealth Managers” award recognizes individuals who help manage and implement aspects of the financial world. The magazine formed a partnership

Page 31

with Crescendo Business Services to discover which wealth managers scored highest in overall satisfaction. Crescendo administered a survey, by mail and phone. Only wealth managers with five years of experience in the financial services industry were considered. The resulting list of Wealth Managers is an elite group, representing less than 5 percent of the wealth managers in the Pittsburgh area. 2009 “Five Star Wealth Management” Award Published by Pittsburgh Magazine Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich and James J. Holtzman were selected in 2009. The criteria for this award was not mentioned in the original magazine. 2010 “Five Star Wealth Management” Award Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in 2010. The criteria for this award was not mentioned in the original magazine. 2011 “Five Star Wealth Management” Award Published by Pittsburgh Magazine Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in July, 2011. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“The Five Star Professional research team contacted clients, peers and industry experts and asked if they had any experience working with a wealth manager. Those who participate in the research provided the name of a wealth manager and rated that individual according to key criteria, such as integrity, value for fee charged and quality of recommendations. The survey data was collected and scored, resulting in the list of 2011 Pittsburgh Five Star Wealth Managers. The research methodology allows no more than 7 percent of wealth managers to be named a Five Star Wealth Manager.” “How are Five Star Wealth Managers selected?” “Five Star Professional surveyed 1 in 4 high-net-worth households (more than 68,500 households) and more than 7,500 registered financial services professionals in the Pittsburgh area. Participants in the survey were asked to evaluate only those wealth managers they know through personal experience.”

Page 32

“How many wealth managers receive the Five Star Award?” “The final list of 2011 Pittsburgh Five Star Wealth Managers is a select group, representing less than 6 percent of licensed wealth managers in the area.” “Can wealth managers pay to be listed?” “No. Wealth managers cannot pay to be included in the research or on the final list. The evaluation process and the results are driven by research conducted with clients, peers and industry experts.” “What criteria do you evaluate?” “The Five Stay Wealth Manager research surveys focus on nine criteria: customer service, integrity, knowledge/expertise, communication, value for fee charged, meeting of financial objectives, post-sale service, quality of recommendations and overall satisfaction. Wealth managers, broadly defined, are those individuals who help you manage your financial world and/or implement aspects of your financial strategies.” “How are the surveys scored?” “Both positive and negative evaluations are included in scoring. Only wealth managers with more than five years of experience in the financial services industry are considered. Each wealth manager is reviewed for regulatory actions, civil judicial actions and customer complaints as reported by FINRA, the SEC, the State Board of Accountancy and the State Bar. Then, before the list is finalized, it is reviewed by a panel of industry experts. Safeguards are built into the review process to reduce the ability to influence the final list on the basis of company affiliation.”

2013 “Five Star Wealth Management” Award Published by Pittsburgh Magazine Award Criteria Summary: James J. Holtzman was selected in 2013. The criteria for this award was not mentioned in the original magazine. 2016 “Five Star Wealth Management” Award Published by Pittsburgh Magazine Award Criteria Summary:

Page 33

Louis P. Stanasolovich and James J. Holtzman were selected in 2016. The criteria for this award was not mentioned in the original magazine. BARRON’S “TOP 100 INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ADVISERS”: Published by Barron’s Award Criteria Summary: Lou Stanasolovich was selected by Barron’s Magazine for their “Top 100 Independent Financial Advisers” Award listings for the year 2007. This publication did not charge an application fee. Legend submitted an application to be considered for this award. For this award, mostly brokers are included. Legend did not continue participating in subsequent years because Barron’s does not take the quality of advice into account in their evaluation process. 2007 “Top 100 Independent Financial Advisers” Award Criteria Summary: Louis P. Stanasolovich was selected in August, 2007. The following criteria for this award listing was excerpted from the magazine:

“The rankings reflect each adviser’s assets under management, revenues and profits generated, and quality of service. Assets managed for institutions are excluded.” “But the table does indicate each adviser’s approach to the business, as well as the size of the firm (as adviser may be responsible for anywhere from 10% to 100% of a firm’s assets). Shook assigned the top adviser with a score of 100, and rated the rest by comparing them to the winner.”

Please Note: 1Legend is a Fee-Only Advisory Firm. Fee-Only Means Legend Never Receives Any Commissions. However, Legend Trades Securities on Behalf of the Client Through a Few Non-Related Institutional Custodians. As a Result, the Client Often Pays a Small Fee for Mutual Fund Trades for Transactions (Also Known as a Trading Fee or Commission). Again, Legend Never Receives any Portion of this Fee.