The Referral Fee and the HELOC
Priya is a dealing representative at a CIRO-member firm. Her client Gordon, 78, is widowed, owns a mortgage-free home worth about $900,000, receives a $52,000 annual defined-benefit pension, and holds $640,000 in a non-registered account plus $85,000 in cash. His KYC form, last updated in 2019, records a five-year horizon, an income objective, and medium risk tolerance.
Gordon wants to borrow $250,000 through a home equity line of credit to buy a broad Canadian equity ETF, arguing that the distribution yield exceeds the 6.45% HELOC rate. The mortgage broker arranging the loan, Denise, has offered Priya a $1,200 referral fee. Priya's firm has not approved the arrangement and Priya has not disclosed it. Priya's branch manager, who is close to Denise, told her to 'get the forms signed and move on.' Gordon mentions he has trouble keeping track of paperwork since his wife died. Two days later his daughter Nadia calls and demands that Priya cancel the trade and send her copies of his account statements.
1. Identify every compliance and regulatory failure in this sequence and state what Priya must do before any trade is entered.
Read the worked answer
The referral fee is the first problem. Accepting $1,200 from Denise is an outside business activity and a direct conflict of interest that requires prior written approval from Priya's firm; undisclosed compensation from a third party is prohibited, and a branch manager's verbal blessing does not authorize it. Priya must decline or remit the fee, disclose the relationship, and report the manager's instruction to compliance.
Before any trade she needs to:
- Update the KYC. A 2019 file cannot support a leveraged equity purchase, and a stated income objective contradicts buying a growth ETF on borrowed money.
- Confirm the client understands the HELOC is a demand facility that can be reduced or called, and that interest is payable whether or not the ETF rises.
- Document the alternatives discussed: using part of the $85,000 cash, a smaller loan, or no leverage at all.
- Address capacity. Gordon's remark about paperwork is a red flag, not a diagnosis, but it means a slower, documented conversation and the offer of a trusted contact person.
- Escalate the manager's direction under the firm's conflict-of-interest and supervision policies.
If she cannot update the KYC and justify leverage on the file, she must decline the trade. The obligation runs to the client, not to the branch's revenue.
2. Assess the suitability of the proposed $250,000 leveraged purchase for Gordon.
Read the worked answer
The numbers do not support leverage here. Borrowing $250,000 against a net worth of roughly $725,000 is about 34% leverage. At 6.45%, interest costs $16,125 a year. A broad Canadian equity ETF yields perhaps 3%, or $7,500 on $250,000 - a negative carry of roughly $8,600 before any capital gain. The portfolio must earn more than 6.45% just to break even, and interest deductibility applies only where the borrowed funds are used to earn income from property, which must be documented at the outset.
The risk profile is also mismatched. Gordon is 78, his pension covers his spending, and his stated horizon is five years against a demand loan that can be reduced at any time. A 30% equity decline on $250,000 is a $75,000 loss - about 10% of his net worth - while interest keeps accruing and the lender can demand repayment with his home as collateral.
His stated objective is income; leverage adds risk without adding reliable cash flow. A suitable alternative is $100,000 drawn from his cash and account into a GIC ladder or a balanced fund, keeping the home unencumbered.
As presented, the strategy is unsuitable and should not be recommended, whatever the branch wants.
3. How should Priya respond to Nadia's call?
Read the worked answer
Priya cannot discuss the account, confirm holdings, or send statements to Nadia without written authorization from Gordon, such as a power of attorney or a specific consent naming her. Privacy obligations survive family relationships.
She should listen to Nadia's concerns, take notes, and tell her the concerns will be recorded - without confirming anything about the account. She must not act on Nadia's instruction to cancel the trade; Gordon is the instructing party until a valid POA or mandate is in place.
The call is also evidence. Combined with Gordon's remark about paperwork, it should trigger the firm's procedures for suspected diminished capacity or financial exploitation: a documented conversation with Gordon, an offer to add a trusted contact person, and escalation to the branch compliance officer. Firms generally may place a temporary hold on transactions where there is a reasonable belief that a client is being financially exploited, but the hold must be documented, time-limited, and reviewed, and must not be used as a substitute for talking to the client.
If Gordon is capable, the referral fee and the leverage question still have to be resolved before the HELOC is drawn. If capacity is genuinely in doubt, the file goes to compliance and, if necessary, to a POA or the appropriate authority.