The Nephew, the Annuity, and the Trusted Contact
Daniel, a CFP® professional, has advised Robert, age 79, for six years. Robert's wife died 18 months ago; his investable assets are $1.8 million, mostly in a revocable trust. At the last two meetings Robert repeated questions, forgot signing a document, and appeared confused about his portfolio. His daughter, Claire, calls Daniel saying Robert's nephew-an insurance agent-is urging Robert to move $600,000 into a 10-year indexed annuity with an 8% surrender charge and a 25% referral fee to Daniel's firm. Robert tells Daniel he wants to do it because 'the nephew is family.' Claire asks Daniel not to discuss her call. Daniel's firm has a diminished-capacity protocol and a trusted-contact form on file.
1. Identify the professional conduct and regulatory issues Daniel faces, including conflicts, disclosure, and client capacity. What should he do first?
Read the worked answer
Separate the issues: capacity, influence, and compensation.
- Capacity: Daniel should not diagnose, but he must follow the firm's diminished-capacity protocol. He should meet Robert alone, use open-ended and teach-back questions, and document specific observations-repeated questions, confusion at signing, inability to explain the annuity's liquidity limits.
- Undue influence/exploitation: The nephew's recommendation plus Robert's 'family' rationale is a red flag. Daniel should ask Robert to explain the 10-year surrender period, the 8% charge, fees, and what happens if he needs the $600,000 for care. A long surrender period may be unsuitable for a 79-year-old without a clear liquidity need.
- Conflict: The 25% referral fee to Daniel's firm is material. It must be disclosed in writing before any recommendation and cannot drive the advice. If the firm cannot supervise or disclose it properly, Daniel should decline the referral compensation.
First step: pause the transaction, consult compliance/legal, and follow the trusted-contact protocol. If Daniel suspects elder financial exploitation, he must follow applicable reporting requirements.
2. How should Daniel respond to Claire's request that he not discuss her call, and what should be documented?
Read the worked answer
Daniel should not promise Claire absolute secrecy if doing so would prevent him from protecting Robert. Confidentiality belongs to Robert, not Claire. Daniel can listen to Claire, thank her, and explain that he will act in Robert's best interest and cannot conceal material concerns from his own supervisory process.
He should document separately: the date and content of Claire's call; Robert's specific behaviors and statements; the alternatives discussed; Robert's understanding of the annuity; the referral-fee conflict; and any trusted-contact outreach. If Robert can give informed consent, Daniel should tell Robert that Claire called-unless doing so would endanger Robert-and ask Robert's permission to involve Claire. If Robert lacks capacity for this decision, Daniel should follow the firm's protocol and state-law escalation steps.
3. Robert insists on signing the annuity application today. What is Daniel's appropriate response?
Read the worked answer
Daniel should not facilitate a transaction he cannot establish as informed and suitable. He can use a cooling-off period, request a private meeting, and involve the trusted contact under the protocol. He should tell Robert plainly that he is not comfortable proceeding until Robert can explain the product's costs, surrender period, and alternatives.
If Robert is firm and appears to understand, Daniel may present alternatives and document Robert's decision, but the conflict and suitability analysis still apply. If Robert appears confused or is being pressured, Daniel should decline to process the application, notify compliance, and consider an adult protective services report. The professional obligation is not to win the argument but to prevent an uninformed or exploited decision.