Referral Fees, a Leveraged MIC, and a Joint-Client Secret
Maya is a CFP professional at an independent firm. Her compensation is a $3,500 planning fee plus trailing commissions on products she places. Her firm has a referral agreement with a local mortgage broker: the broker receives 0.5% of any mortgage placed through the firm, and Maya receives $500 for each mortgage referral she sends back. New clients Dev and Anita, ages 58 and 55, have $1.2 million invested, a $600,000 mortgage, and want to retire at 60. Dev asks Maya to arrange a $150,000 HELOC to invest in a private mortgage investment corporation (MIC) yielding 9%; the MIC pays Maya's firm a 1% trailer. Anita believes the HELOC is for a kitchen renovation. Dev also says his brother-in-law, an insurance agent, will handle their life insurance and asks Maya not to mention that the brother-in-law pays her firm a marketing fee. Anita has recently been diagnosed with early-stage cognitive impairment and Dev has asked to be sole contact.
1. Identify the professional-conduct and conflict-of-interest issues Maya faces, and state what must be disclosed, to whom, and in what form.
Read the worked answer
Compensation conflicts. Maya must disclose, in writing and before the engagement, that she receives a planning fee, trailing commissions, a $500 mortgage referral payment, the 0.5% broker referral arrangement, and the 1% MIC trailer. A conflict is not cured by disclosure alone, but undisclosed compensation is a clear breach. The marketing fee from the brother-in-law's agency is also a referral arrangement that must be disclosed and consented to.
Joint clients and the secret. Dev and Anita are both clients. Maya cannot agree to hide the true purpose of the HELOC from Anita when it affects their joint financial plan and the suitability of the investment. She should ask Dev to disclose the purpose to Anita or decline to proceed. If she accepts instructions from Dev alone, she risks incomplete know-your-client information and facilitating a misrepresentation.
Capacity. Anita's diagnosis does not automatically mean she lacks capacity. Maya must assess whether Anita can understand the advice and appreciate the consequences. That may require meeting Anita alone, using a trusted-contact protocol, or confirming authority under a power of attorney. Dev cannot simply declare himself sole contact.
Suitability. A leveraged, illiquid MIC is a high-risk, concentrated investment. With a $600,000 mortgage, retirement in two years, no stated emergency fund, and a 9% yield that is not guaranteed, it is unlikely to be suitable without a full risk-tolerance and debt-service review.
2. What steps should Maya take before agreeing to recommend the $150,000 HELOC/MIC strategy?
Read the worked answer
- Complete KYC for both spouses, including risk tolerance, investment knowledge, net worth, cash flow, liquidity needs, and the reason for the leverage. Meet Anita separately to confirm her understanding.
- Assess debt service and downside risk. Stress-test the HELOC at higher rates and assume the MIC distributions could fall or be suspended. Confirm the couple could carry the loan without the MIC income.
- Document alternatives such as using existing cash, delaying the renovation, or investing in a diversified portfolio without leverage.
- Obtain independent legal and tax advice because of the leverage, the private-issuer risk, and the spousal-disclosure issue.
- Disclose conflicts in writing and obtain written consent. If the strategy is unsuitable, decline and record the reasons.
- Do not participate in misleading Anita. If Dev insists on secrecy, Maya should treat that as a red flag and consider whether she can continue acting for the household.
3. Draft the key documentation points Maya should record in the client file.
Read the worked answer
Record: the written disclosures of all fees and referral arrangements; the date and manner of disclosure; both spouses' KYC information and risk-tolerance assessment; the separate meeting with Anita and the capacity assessment; the conflict analysis and consent; the alternatives considered; the stress-test results; the independent-advice referral; the rationale for proceeding or declining; all client instructions, including Dev's request for secrecy and Maya's response; and any follow-up actions. Good documentation should let a reviewer see what was known, what was disclosed, why the recommendation was suitable, and how the joint-client conflict was managed.