The Commission-Compensated Advisor and the Rollover Recommendation
Priya is a financial advisor compensated partly by commissions on annuities and mutual funds and partly by a flat planning fee. A client, Alan, 62, is retiring and wants to roll over his $780,000 employer 401(k) into an indexed annuity Priya recommends. The annuity has a 7-year surrender schedule (7% declining to 1%), a 1.25% mortality and expense charge, a 1% rider fee for a guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit, and a 3% cap on index credits. The 401(k) has institutional share classes with an all-in cost of 0.35% and a stable value fund yielding 4.1%. Alan has $45,000 in a savings account, no other retirement assets, and a pension of $2,200/month starting now. He says he wants 'guaranteed income and no losses.' Priya's firm requires a best-interest documentation file for rollover recommendations.
1. What conflicts of interest and suitability issues must Priya address before recommending the rollover, and what should the documentation file contain?
Read the worked answer
The recommendation must be evaluated as a best-interest rollover, not merely as a product sale. Key issues:
- Compensation conflict: Priya earns a commission on the annuity and none on the rollover to institutional funds. That conflict must be disclosed in writing and mitigated - the recommendation must be justified on the client's merits, not the advisor's compensation.
- Cost comparison: the annuity's all-in cost is roughly 2.25% plus the opportunity cost of the 3% cap, versus 0.35% in the plan. On $780,000, that is roughly $14,800/year more in costs, which materially reduces long-term accumulation.
- Loss of plan protections: the 401(k) offers institutional pricing, a stable value fund at 4.1%, creditor protection under ERISA, and possibly a plan-level annuity option. Rolling over forfeits these.
- Liquidity: a 7-year surrender schedule on 7% declining to 1% means a full surrender in year one costs up to $54,600. Alan has only $45,000 outside the plan, so the annuity would be his only liquid asset - a serious concern.
- Need analysis: Alan has a $2,200/month pension and will have Social Security. The annuity's guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit may be duplicative of income he already has, while the cap limits upside.
Documentation should include: the client's goals and risk tolerance, alternatives considered (leave in plan, roll to IRA in low-cost funds, partial annuitization), cost and fee comparison, the rationale for the recommendation, disclosure of compensation, and the client's signed acknowledgment. If the analysis does not support the rollover, Priya should recommend against it even at the cost of her commission.
2. Alan insists he wants 'no losses.' How should Priya respond, and what alternatives might better meet his actual objective?
Read the worked answer
Reframe the objective. 'No losses' is usually a proxy for 'I cannot tolerate a large drawdown near retirement,' not a demand for a specific product. Priya should quantify what a loss would mean: with a $2,200 pension and Social Security, Alan's essential expenses may already be covered, so his portfolio's job is supplemental income and inflation protection, not principal guarantee at any cost.
Alternatives to present:
- Stay in the plan or roll to a low-cost IRA with a conservative allocation plus a stable value or short-term bond sleeve. This preserves liquidity and costs far less.
- Partial annuitization: use a portion (e.g., $200,000–$300,000) to purchase a single premium immediate annuity for guaranteed income, keeping the rest invested and liquid. This isolates the guarantee to the amount actually needed.
- A deferred income annuity to bridge from 62 to Social Security at 70, which can be efficient.
- If an indexed annuity is still chosen: compare caps, participation rates, and surrender terms across carriers, disclose the rider cost explicitly, and consider a shorter surrender period or a product with a return-of-premium feature.
Priya must also address the concentration risk of putting 100% of retirement assets into one contract and the loss of the 4.1% stable value yield. Recommend a written comparison and a cooling-off review, and document that the client understood the trade-offs. If Alan still prefers the annuity, a partial allocation is a reasonable compromise that keeps liquidity and reduces cost.