The Tax-Driven Recommendation
A client in the 32% bracket holds a $200,000 position in a single stock with a $40,000 unrealized gain (basis $160,000). The adviser recommends an immediate sale to diversify, citing concentration risk. The client objects: "I'll owe capital gains tax." The adviser responds that the tax is "only about $6,400" and that diversification is worth it. The client is 55, plans to hold the stock for at least ten more years if not sold, and has no other significant assets outside retirement accounts. The adviser's firm also runs the concentrated stock's dividend reinvestment program.
1. Evaluate the adviser's tax reasoning and the recommendation's soundness.
Read the worked answer
The tax math is incomplete. At a 32% ordinary bracket, the long-term capital gains rate is likely 15% (plus a possible 3.8% net investment income tax), not 32%. On a $40,000 gain that is roughly $6,000-$7,500 - close to the adviser's figure, but the adviser should show the calculation, not assert it. More importantly, the decision is not "tax vs. no tax"; it is "concentration risk vs. tax cost," and the two must be weighed.
Concentration risk: A single $200,000 stock is the client's dominant non-retirement asset. Idiosyncratic risk is uncompensated - the client bears company-specific risk with no expected return premium. For a 55-year-old with a ten-year horizon, that is a real problem.
But the recommendation is too blunt. Full immediate liquidation ignores:
- The client's stated ten-year horizon and low liquidity need.
- Tax-loss harvesting opportunities elsewhere in the portfolio to offset gains.
- A staged sale across tax years to stay in lower brackets.
- Charitable strategies (donor-advised fund) if the client is so inclined.
- Exchange funds or collars, with their own costs and risks.
2. What conflict exists, and how should the adviser frame the recommendation?
Read the worked answer
Conflict: The firm administers the stock's dividend reinvestment program. Selling the position removes assets from that program and may reduce firm revenue. That is a conflict the adviser must disclose - and it cuts against the recommendation, which makes disclosure more important, not less.
Framing:
- Present the trade-off explicitly: expected reduction in portfolio volatility vs. the after-tax cost of selling now vs. later.
- Quantify: what does the concentration cost in risk terms (e.g., portfolio volatility contribution, downside scenario)? What does deferral save in tax (time value of the deferred gain)?
- Offer a menu: sell 25-50% now, harvest losses to offset, sell the rest over two to three tax years.
- Document the client's decision either way. If the client declines, record the concentration risk discussion and set a review trigger.
The adviser should not let the "only $6,400" framing minimize a genuine trade-off, nor let the DRIP conflict quietly shape the advice.