The 68-Year-Old and the 10-Year Surrender Schedule
A 68-year-old retiree, Margaret, has $310,000 in a taxable brokerage account and $40,000 in a savings account. She tells the agent she wants to consolidate everything into a single fixed indexed annuity. The product has a 10-year declining surrender charge starting at 9%, a market value adjustment, and a 7-year bonus vesting schedule on a 5% premium bonus. Margaret says she may need $60,000 in about 3 years for a grandchild's tuition and expects to start drawing income at 75. She has no other liquid emergency fund beyond the $40,000 savings. The agent is paid a 6% commission on the full premium. The agent's suitability file contains only the signed application and a one-page product brochure.
1. Identify the specific suitability red flags in this fact pattern and explain which regulatory best-interest obligations each one implicates.
Read the worked answer
Key red flags and the obligations they touch:
- Liquidity mismatch. She may need $60,000 in ~3 years, but the product has a 10-year surrender schedule and an MVA. A withdrawal inside the surrender period triggers charges and a possible MVA - directly contrary to her stated need. The best-interest standard requires that the recommendation reflect the consumer's liquidity needs and time horizon, not just risk tolerance.
- Bonus vesting vs. early exit. The 5% premium bonus vests over 7 years; leaving early forfeits part of it. The agent must not present the bonus as free money without disclosing the vesting and recapture mechanics.
- Concentration of assets. Consolidating nearly all investable assets into one illiquid product reduces diversification and leaves only $40,000 liquid against a $60,000 near-term need - a suitability and needs-analysis failure.
- Compensation conflict. A 6% commission on a $350,000 premium is large and creates an incentive to recommend the highest-compensation product regardless of fit. The best-interest standard requires the agent to identify and manage conflicts and to consider reasonably available alternatives (e.g., a shorter-surrender product, a MYGA ladder, or keeping funds liquid).
- Documentation gap. A signed application and brochure do not show the basis for the recommendation. The file must document the consumer profile, alternatives considered, and why the recommendation fits.
2. The agent argues the 5% premium bonus "makes up for" the surrender charges. Evaluate this claim quantitatively and state whether it cures the suitability problem.
Read the worked answer
Assume a $350,000 premium and a 5% bonus = $17,500 credited. If she withdraws $60,000 in year 3:
- Surrender charge at year 3 on a 9%-declining-to-0-over-10-years schedule is roughly 7% (depending on the exact schedule). 7% of $60,000 ≈ $4,200 in charges, plus a possible MVA if rates have risen.
- The bonus is only partially vested at year 3 under a 7-year schedule (roughly 3/7 ≈ 43%, or about $7,500 vested), so part of the bonus may be recaptured or forfeited on early withdrawal.
- Net: the "free" $17,500 is substantially offset by charges and vesting loss, and the remaining bonus is spread over years she may not stay.
Conclusion: the bonus does not cure the problem. A bonus is a feature that must be evaluated net of surrender charges, MVA, vesting, and the opportunity cost of illiquidity. The suitability question is whether the product meets her 3-year liquidity need and 7-year income timeline, and on these facts it does not. The agent's argument is a sales rationale, not a suitability analysis.
3. What should the agent's suitability file contain to satisfy a best-interest review, and what outcome should a supervisor reach?
Read the worked answer
The file should document:
- Consumer profile: age, financial situation, liquidity needs, time horizon, risk tolerance, existing assets, income needs, and the $60,000 3-year need.
- Needs analysis: how the product addresses each need and why alternatives were rejected.
- Alternatives considered: e.g., a shorter-surrender annuity, a multi-year guaranteed annuity ladder, keeping funds in the brokerage account, or a split allocation.
- Conflict disclosure: commission amount and how the conflict was managed.
- Product-specific disclosures: surrender schedule, MVA, bonus vesting/recapture, free-withdrawal provisions.
- Consumer acknowledgment of the liquidity constraints.
Supervisor outcome: The recommendation should be rejected or revised as presented. The 3-year liquidity need conflicts with a 10-year surrender schedule, and near-total consolidation is unsuitable. A compliant path would be to keep the $60,000 (or more) liquid, recommend a product with a shorter surrender period or no surrender charge for the remainder, and document the revised rationale. If the agent proceeds as recommended, the supervisor should not approve the transaction and should escalate for review.