Concentrated Legacy Stock and a Margin Loan Request
Ms. Chan, 58, is a widow who inherited a concentrated position: 90,000 shares of a NASDAQ-listed small-cap medical-device company, worth about USD 1.2 million, or 57% of her USD 2.1 million net worth. The stock trades about 25,000 shares a day, and her position equals roughly 18% of the free float. Her only income is a USD 80,000 annual pension; she has a USD 300,000 mortgage and USD 150,000 in cash. On a risk questionnaire she selected 'balanced', but in conversation she focuses on a recent buyback announcement and says the stock 'can only go up'. She asks her bank adviser to arrange a USD 400,000 margin loan secured by the shares so she can buy more, arguing the dividend yield covers the interest. The bank has a concentration limit of 25% of loan value in any single small-cap and requires 50% initial margin. The client refuses to sell any shares.
1. Identify the suitability and concentration problems in the margin request. What should the adviser do before responding?
Read the worked answer
The request fails on several dimensions:
- Concentration: the position is already 57% of net worth. A USD 400,000 loan used to buy more of the same stock would raise single-name exposure to about 76% of net worth (USD 1.6m of USD 2.1m). That is inconsistent with a balanced profile and with any prudent single-name limit.
- Liquidity: at 25,000 shares a day, liquidating 90,000 shares would take several days and could move the price. The collateral is not reliably liquid in a stress event.
- Bank policy: the loan would be secured by one small-cap and would exceed the 25% single-small-cap collateral limit. The 50% initial margin must be applied to a haircutted, volatile collateral value, not the market price.
- Affordability: the client's income is a fixed pension and she has a mortgage. A dividend cut or rate rise could force sales at the worst time.
Before responding, the adviser should document the suitability assessment, escalate to credit and product risk, and not rely on the questionnaire alone. The adviser should also explain the risks in writing and explore alternatives, such as selling part of the holding or using existing cash.
2. How should the adviser handle the gap between the client's stated risk tolerance and her actual capacity for loss?
Read the worked answer
The adviser should separate willingness to take risk from capacity to bear loss. The client's behaviour shows recency bias and overconfidence, while her financial facts show limited capacity: one pension, a mortgage, and a concentrated, illiquid holding. A balanced label on a questionnaire does not override those facts.
The adviser should:
- Re-run the risk assessment using a capacity-for-loss lens: what happens if the stock falls 50% and the loan is called?
- Explain the difference between a temporary paper loss and a forced sale at the bottom.
- Discuss diversification alternatives without pressuring the client, and record her reasons for refusing.
- Escalate internally if the client cannot be moved from an unsuitable instruction.
The adviser must not treat the client's confidence as evidence of suitability. The professional judgement is that the proposed leverage is unsuitable for this client even if she signs a risk acknowledgement.
3. If the client insists on proceeding, what should the firm do and what records should it keep?
Read the worked answer
The firm should not execute an unsuitable leveraged concentration merely because the client insists. It should:
- Escalate to a senior suitability or credit committee with authority to decline.
- Issue a written suitability report explaining the concentration, liquidity, margin-call, and affordability risks, and the firm's recommendation against the loan.
- Offer compliant alternatives: partial sale and diversification, a smaller non-leveraged purchase, or a standby facility with stricter covenants.
- If the firm still declines, document the decision, the client's instructions, and the alternatives offered.
Records should include the risk profile, net-worth and income evidence, collateral liquidity analysis, margin calculations, the written warning, the client's response, and the approver's rationale. A client-signed acknowledgement is useful evidence but is not a waiver of the firm's suitability obligation. If the client remains insistent, the firm should be prepared to decline the relationship or the transaction and manage any complaint through its normal process.