Yim Investment Management, LLC

Includes form instructions and options. Options shown in this text do not identify which boxes were selected.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
This Disclosure Reporting Page (DRP ADV) is an 
INITIAL OR
AMENDED response used to report details for affirmative responses to Items 11.C., 11.D.,
11.E., 11.F. or 11.G. of Form ADV.
Regulatory Action
Check item(s) being responded to:
11.C(1)
11.C(2)
11.C(3)
11.C(4)
11.C(5)
11.D(1)
11.D(2)
11.D(3)
11.D(4)
11.D(5)
11.E(1)
11.E(2)
11.E(3)
11.E(4)
11.F.
11.G.
Use a separate DRP for each event or proceeding . The same event or proceeding may be reported for more than one person or entity using one DRP. File
with a completed Execution Page. 
One event may result in more than one affirmative answer to Items 11.C., 11.D., 11.E., 11.F. or 11.G. Use only one DRP to report details related to the
same event. If an event gives rise to actions by more than one regulator, provide details for each action on a separate DRP.
PART I
A.  The person(s) or entity(ies) for whom this DRP is being filed is (are):
You (the advisory firm)
You and one or more of your advisory affiliates
One or more of your advisory affiliates
If this DRP is being filed for an advisory affiliate, give the full name of the advisory affiliate below (for individuals, Last name, First name, Middle name). 
If the advisory affiliate has a CRD number, provide that number. If not, indicate "non-registered" by checking the appropriate box.

ADV DRP - ADVISORY AFFILIATE
No Information Filed
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because the advisory affiliate(s) is no longer associated with the adviser.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because: (1) the event or proceeding occurred more than ten years ago or (2) the adviser is
registered or applying for registration with the SEC or reporting as an exempt reporting adviser with the SEC and the event was resolved in the
adviser's or advisory affiliate's favor.
If you are registered or registering with a state securities authority , you may remove a DRP for an event you reported only in response to Item
11.D(4), and only if that event occurred more than ten years ago. If you are registered or registering with the SEC, you may remove a DRP for any
event listed in Item 11 that occurred more than ten years ago.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because it was filed in error, such as due to a clerical or data-entry mistake. Explain the
circumstances: 
B.
If the advisory affiliate is registered through the IARD system or CRD system, has the advisory affiliate submitted a DRP (with Form ADV, BD or U-4) to
the IARD or CRD for the event? If the answer is "Yes," no other information on this DRP must be provided.
 Yes
 No
NOTE: The completion of this form does not relieve the advisory affiliate of its obligation to update its IARD or CRD records.
PART II
1.  Regulatory Action initiated by:
SEC   
Other Federal   
State   
SRO
Foreign
(Full name of regulator, foreign financial regulatory authority, federal, state, or SRO) 
NASD
2.
Principal Sanction:
Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)
Other Sanctions: 
3.
Date Initiated (MM/DD/YYYY): 
03/05/2003
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
4.
Docket/Case Number:
NASD CASE #03-01219
5.
Advisory Affiliate Employing Firm when activity occurred which led to the regulatory action (if applicable):
RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
6.
Principal Product Type:
Mutual Fund(s)
Other Product Types: 
7.
Describe the allegations related to this regulatory action (your response must fit within the space provided):
CLAIMANT ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION; UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; UNSUITABILITY, CHURNING; FAILURE TO SUPERVISE. INCIDENT DATES: JANUARY
2000 - MARCH 2001.
8.
Current Status?      
 Pending
 On Appeal
 Final
9.
If on appeal, regulatory action appealed to (SEC, SRO, Federal or State Court) and Date Appeal Filed:
If Final or On Appeal, complete all items below. For Pending Actions, complete Item 13 only.
10. How was matter resolved:
Decision
11. Resolution Date (MM/DD/YYYY):
04/26/2005
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:

12. Resolution Detail:
A.  Were any of the following Sanctions Ordered (check all appropriate items)?
 Monetary/Fine Amount: $ 44,000.00
 Revocation/Expulsion/Denial
 Disgorgement/Restitution
 Censure
 Cease and Desist/Injunction
 Bar
 Suspension
B.
Other Sanctions Ordered:
Sanction detail: if suspended, enjoined or barred, provide duration including start date and capacities affected (General Securities Principal,
Financial Operations Principal, etc.). If requalification by exam/retraining was a condition of the sanction, provide length of time given to
requalify/retrain, type of exam required and whether condition has been satisfied. If disposition resulted in a fine, penalty, restitution,
disgorgement or monetary compensation, provide total amount, portion levied against you or an advisory affiliate, date paid and if any portion
of penalty was waived: 
REGISTRANT AND RAYMOND JAMES WERE JOINTLY LIABLE FOR THE FINE OF $44,000. THE FINE WAS PAID SHORTLY AFTER THE AWARD DATED
4.25.05. NO PORTION OF THE FINE WAS WAIVED.
13. Provide a brief summary of details related to the action status and (or) disposition and include relevant terms, conditions and dates (your response
must fit within the space provided).
THE CLAIMANT IS A FORMER CLIENT OF LESS THAN ONE YEAR. THIS WAS DURING THE PERIOD OF 3/2000-2/2001 IN WHICH A WELL DOCUMENTED
MARKET DOWNTURN OCCURRED. THE CLAIMANTS SOUGHT TO HOLD RAYMOND JAMES AND MR. YIM RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSSES THEY INCURRED IN
THEIR SECURITIES PORTFOLIO. CLAIMANTS ASSERT IN THEIR STATEMENT OF CLAIM THAT THEY WERE INEXPERIENCED, CONSERVATIVE INVESTORS
WHOSE INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES WERE FAR MORE CONSERVATIVE AND LESS RISKY THAN THE SECURITIES RECOMMENDED TO THEM BY YIM.
HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT THIS IS COMPLETELY FALSE. THE REALITY IS THAT THE PORTFOLIO OF CLAIMANTS STATED THAT THEIR
PRIMARY INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE WAS LONG-TERM GROWTH, THEY HAD A HIGH-RISK TOLERANCE, THEIR TIME HORIZON WAS GREATER THAN TEN
YEARS AND THAT THE ASSET ALLOCATION THAT THEY RECEIVED WAS MOST SUITABLE FOR THEM. AS SET FORTH BELOW, CLAIMANTS INVESTED THEIR
MONEY WITH RESPONDENTS IN MARCH OF 2000. RATHER THAN ACCEPTING THE RESULTS THAT THE BEAR MARKET AND A DECLINING ECONOMY HAD ON
THEIR INVESTMENTS, CLAIMANTS SEEK TO HAVE RESPONDENTS GUARANTEE THEIR INVESTMENTS FROM MARKET LOSS. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS
CASE INVOLVES NOTHING MORE THAN BUYER'S REMORSE. OTHER ALLEGATIONS OF CHURNING FOR COMMISSIONS IS CLEARLY UNTRUE BASED ON THE
FACT THAT THE TRADES WERE DONE IN A FEE BASED ACCOUNT WITH NO LOAD MUTUAL FUNDS. THE CLAIMANTS REQUEST DAMAGES OF $110,000
PLUS LEGAL COSTS AND ALL OTHER FEES. THIS WAS FOR HIS COMPANY PROFIT SHARING PLAN, INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS AND IRA ACCOUNTS. THE
REDUCED JUDGMENT OF $44,000 WAS ONLY FOR THE PROFIT SHARING PLAN. ALL OTHER ALLEGATIONS FOR THE OTHER ACCOUNTS AND LEGAL,
ARBITRATION AND PUNITIVE FEES BY THE CLAIMANT WAS DENIED.