The Suitability Question Behind the Yield
A 78-year-old client with a $600,000 portfolio, no pension beyond Social Security, and a stated need for $3,000 monthly income is pitched a 7.5% coupon perpetual subordinated bond issued by a mid-sized bank. The adviser notes the yield is far above the client's current 3.1% Treasury ladder and that "principal is safe because it's a bond." The bond is callable in two years, ranks below senior debt, and its coupon can be deferred under certain conditions. The client's daughter, who holds power of attorney but has not been consulted, has previously asked that her mother avoid complex products. The adviser has a sales target tied to structured and subordinated products this quarter.
1. Assess suitability. What features make this product inappropriate, and what conflicts are present?
Read the worked answer
Suitability analysis:
- Income need: $3,000/month on $600,000 is a 6% withdrawal rate. A 7.5% coupon looks like it solves the problem, but the coupon is not guaranteed - deferral risk means income could vanish precisely when the client needs it.
- Capital preservation: The client cannot absorb loss of principal. Subordinated debt absorbs losses before senior debt; in resolution, recovery can be minimal. The "bond = safe" framing is materially misleading.
- Horizon and liquidity: A 78-year-old with no pension has a short, income-dependent horizon. A perpetual instrument with a two-year call is not a maturity-matched asset; if not called, duration extends indefinitely.
- Complexity: Call features, deferral mechanics, and subordination are exactly the features the POA holder asked to avoid.
Conflicts: The adviser's quarterly sales target tied to this product class is a direct conflict of interest that must be disclosed and managed - ideally by removing the adviser from the decision.
Verdict: Unsuitable. The yield is compensation for risks the client cannot bear.
2. What steps should the adviser take before any recommendation, and how should the POA be handled?
Read the worked answer
- Re-establish the IPS with documented income needs, risk tolerance, liquidity constraints, and any health or capacity considerations.
- Engage the POA holder. The daughter's standing instruction is relevant information the adviser must weigh; proceeding without consulting her, given known capacity concerns, invites both suitability and elder-financial-abuse concerns.
- Disclose the conflict - the sales target - in writing and document how it was managed.
- Present alternatives that actually fit: a shorter-duration ladder, a split between Treasuries and high-quality short corporates, or an annuity for guaranteed income. Compare on after-risk basis, not headline yield.
- Document the reasoning so the file shows a suitability assessment, not a product push.
If the client insists on the product after full disclosure, the adviser may still decline if it is unsuitable - client insistence does not cure unsuitability.