The Suitability File With Missing Pieces
A wealth adviser recommends a complex structured note to a 71-year-old retiree whose account holds $600,000, mostly in conservative income funds. The note has a 7-year term, a 15% contingent downside buffer, and pays a coupon only if an underlying index stays above a barrier. The adviser's file contains a signed risk acknowledgment but no documented assessment of the client's risk tolerance, liquidity needs, or investment objective. The client mentioned in a call that she may need $200,000 within two years for a home purchase. The note is not listed on an exchange and has wide dealer spreads. Compliance samples the file and finds the suitability documentation incomplete. The firm's policy requires a documented suitability assessment for complex products and prohibits recommending illiquid products where near-term liquidity needs are known.
1. Evaluate whether this recommendation complies with suitability and conduct requirements.
Read the worked answer
On the facts, the recommendation appears non-compliant on several dimensions. First, documentation: a signed risk acknowledgment is not a suitability assessment. The firm's policy requires a documented assessment of risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and objective; none exists. That alone is a policy breach and a supervisory failure. Second, liquidity mismatch: the client disclosed a likely $200,000 need within two years, and the note is a 7-year, unlisted instrument with wide dealer spreads. Recommending it conflicts directly with the known liquidity need and the firm's prohibition. Third, product complexity: a contingent-buffer, barrier-linked note with a 15% downside exposure is materially riskier than the conservative income funds the client holds, and there is no evidence the client understood the barrier or the capital-at-risk feature. Fourth, concentration: allocating a meaningful share of a $600,000 retirement portfolio to an illiquid complex product raises concentration and sequencing risk for a 71-year-old.
The signed acknowledgment does not cure these defects; conduct rules focus on the substance of suitability, not on paperwork. The adviser should be required to remediate the file, and the recommendation should be reversed or the allocation drastically reduced.
2. What supervisory and remediation steps should compliance take, and what is the regulatory exposure?
Read the worked answer
Supervisory steps: (1) place the adviser under enhanced supervision and review a sample of recent complex-product recommendations for the same documentation gaps; (2) require a documented suitability assessment and, where the client's liquidity need is confirmed, unwind or reduce the position and document the client communication; (3) assess whether the client suffered detriment - if the note has lost value or cannot be sold without a wide spread, consider remediation or compensation; (4) check whether the firm's product governance approved this note for the retail segment and whether the target market definition was respected; (5) report the control weakness through the firm's governance channel and consider whether it is a reportable conduct event.
Regulatory exposure includes breach of suitability and conduct rules, potential mis-selling findings, and supervisory criticism of the firm's product governance and record-keeping. Aggravating factors are the client's age, the known liquidity need, and the incomplete file. Mitigating factors would be prompt self-identification and remediation. The exam judgement is that the firm must look beyond the single file to whether the control environment allowed the gap to recur, and that client detriment - not just paperwork - determines the remediation obligation.