Switching a Long-Standing Holding: Charges, Conflicts and Suitability
Derek, aged 72, has a £220,000 ISA invested in a multi-asset fund with an ongoing charge of 0.45% and no exit charge. He takes £9,000 a year income. His adviser, employed by a firm whose bonus pool is funded by trail commission, recommends switching to a new income fund with an ongoing charge of 1.55%, a 3% initial charge and a 0.5% annual trail paid to the firm. The new fund yields 4.8% against 3.2% for the existing fund, but its volatility is 11% against 7%, and it has a three-year track record. Derek's daughter attends the meeting and asks why her father should pay £6,600 upfront. Derek says he does not understand the difference between the funds but 'trusts the adviser'. The firm's suitability letter is two pages long and does not mention the trail or the exit costs. The adviser's target is to increase recurring revenue by 10% this year.
1. Identify the suitability and ethical issues in the adviser's recommendation.
Read the worked answer
The recommendation has a serious suitability problem. The client is 72, income-focused, and does not understand the products. The new fund has higher volatility (11% vs 7%), a short three-year record, and much higher costs.
The cost arithmetic is stark. Existing ongoing charge: 0.45% x £220,000 = £990 a year. New ongoing charge: 1.55% x £220,000 = £3,410 a year, an extra £2,420. The trail adds 0.5% x £220,000 = £1,100 a year, and the initial charge is 3% x £220,000 = £6,600. The extra yield is 4.8% - 3.2% = 1.6%, or £3,520 a year on £220,000. In year one, the extra yield is entirely consumed by the extra ongoing charge and trail, before the £6,600 initial charge. The switch therefore destroys value unless the new fund outperforms by a wide margin.
The ethical issues are conflicts of interest and vulnerable-client handling. The adviser's bonus depends on recurring revenue, and the target encourages switching. The suitability letter omits the trail and exit costs, so disclosure is inadequate. Derek's deference and his daughter's concern are warning signs. The adviser should not proceed on the current recommendation.
2. What should the adviser and firm do before any switch is executed, and how should the conflict be managed?
Read the worked answer
First, treat Derek as a potentially vulnerable client. Check his understanding, allow his daughter to be involved with his consent, and document the discussion. Do not rely on his statement that he trusts the adviser.
Second, carry out a full suitability review: income need, risk tolerance, time horizon, tax position, existing fund performance and the total cost of the switch. Compare the new fund with the existing fund on a like-for-like basis, including volatility, yield, charges and the effect of the initial charge. Consider whether a cheaper share class, a clean fee-based arrangement or simply retaining the existing fund would meet his needs.
Third, disclose all costs and the conflict in writing: the 3% initial charge, the 1.55% ongoing charge, the 0.5% trail, and the fact that the firm and adviser benefit from the switch. If the switch is still suitable, explain why the extra yield justifies the extra risk and cost, and document the rationale.
Fourth, manage the conflict at firm level. Remove or override the bonus incentive for this case, require compliance or senior sign-off, and review whether the suitability letter template omits trail and exit costs. If the switch is not suitable, the adviser should recommend against it and record that advice.