A very interesting and fast paced read.
Many thanks to Penhurst Books and to NetGalley for providing me with a galley in exchange for my honest opinion.

This book discusses change in the financial industry by detailing, in exhaustive detail, a FINRA hearing where a broker was accused of unsuitably investing her client's assets in fixed-income securities. The subject is interesting enough, and some of the points enlightening, but the way the whole thing was laid out was

1) roundabout (several time/location jumps in the beginning that interrupted the set-up of the conflict),
2) long-winded. The main points could have been made in just a few pages, if the author hadn't spent so much time dramatizing the process, and detailing the wardrobe. I didn't find the situation interesting enough on its own to want to spend hundreds of pages fleshing out the arguments and the outcome -- I personally would have preferred a 2-3 page brief.
3) some inconsistencies (the most glaring dealt with which lawyer had a background in finance -- this swapped after the first mention).

My rating (***) -- Not really a novel, more of a rant about how fixed income investments are risky in a declining interest environment. The story is of an arbitration where the plaintiffs are retirees who lose 20% of their investment not because of losses on their investment, but because of withdrawals of their principal to maintain their lifestyle. The plaintiffs are awarded 2/3 of their loss because an expert witness convinces the panel that the answer is investing in utility stocks for growth income from dividends. Although the premise is sound, the story is awful. Three stars is generous from a fiction standpoint.