Autocallable Note, Worst-Of Exposure, and Suitability
A 67-year-old client has $900,000 of investable assets and needs $36,000 per year from the portfolio to supplement pension income. Her current allocation is 55% bonds, 30% global equities, and 15% cash; about 25% of the equity sleeve is already in large-cap technology stocks. An adviser proposes investing $300,000 in a two-year autocallable note issued by an A-rated bank. The note pays 8.5% per year, has quarterly autocall observations at 100% of initial level, a 70% knock-in barrier, and worst-of exposure to three technology stocks. If the note is not autocalled and the worst-of finishes at 65% of its initial level after a knock-in, the client receives shares worth 65% of principal and keeps coupons received. The note has no secondary-market guarantee; the issuer's credit spreads have widened. The adviser's compensation includes an $8,000 upfront payment linked to the sale. The client says she does not understand 'knock-in' but likes the yield.
1. Quantify the downside in the stated stress scenario and compare it with the client's income need.
Read the worked answer
Principal loss. $300,000 x 65% = $195,000 of shares at maturity. Loss of principal = $300,000 - $195,000 = $105,000, or 35% of the amount invested.
Coupons. At 8.5% per year for two years, coupons would be $25,500 per year, or $51,000 in total if the note survives and pays for both years. Net result in this stress case = $51,000 - $105,000 = -$54,000, before time value and taxes. The client would also hold a concentrated position in the worst-performing stock.
Income comparison. The coupon is $25,500 per year, about 71% of the $36,000 annual income need. But the coupon is not a reliable income stream: it depends on the issuer paying and on the note not being autocalled or triggering a principal loss. A 35% principal loss on $300,000 is $105,000, nearly three years of the client's income need. The note does not solve the income requirement; it adds a large, correlated risk to it.
Portfolio context. The $300,000 is 33% of investable assets. Existing technology exposure is 25% of the 30% equity sleeve, or $67,500. Adding worst-of technology exposure brings technology-linked exposure to roughly $367,500, over 40% of the portfolio, before considering the note's leverage-like downside.
2. Identify the main suitability and conduct problems in the proposal.
Read the worked answer
Complexity and understanding. The client does not understand the knock-in. A product with a worst-of basket, autocall feature, barrier, and share delivery is not suitable unless the client can understand the payoff and the risk of receiving shares.
Concentration and correlation. One-third of the portfolio in a single issuer's note linked to three technology stocks, alongside existing technology exposure, is a concentrated, correlated bet. It is not a diversified income solution.
Income need mismatch. The client needs stable income. The note's coupon is conditional in substance and the principal is at risk. If the worst-of falls below the barrier, the client can lose a large part of the principal and still need income.
Issuer credit risk. The note is an unsecured obligation of the issuing bank. The A rating is not a guarantee, and widening credit spreads indicate market concern. The client could lose principal even if the underlying stocks perform.
Liquidity risk. There is no secondary-market guarantee. The client may not be able to sell before maturity at a fair price.
Compensation conflict. The $8,000 upfront payment is about 2.67% of the $300,000 investment and creates a clear incentive to recommend the product. The adviser must manage and disclose the conflict and cannot let it drive suitability.
Conduct risk. 'Likes the yield' is not an investment rationale. The adviser should document capacity, risk tolerance, income needs, and alternatives, and should not rely on a vague acceptance.
3. What should the adviser do if the client still wants to invest after a clear explanation?
Read the worked answer
Do not treat consent as a cure. A signed risk disclosure does not make an unsuitable recommendation suitable. The adviser should first reassess the client's objectives, income need, liquidity, risk tolerance, and ability to understand the product.
Consider a smaller, suitable role. If the client insists, the adviser should document the rationale and consider reducing the allocation sharply, diversifying the underlyings away from a single technology theme, or choosing a simpler income product with lower principal risk. The client should retain sufficient cash and bonds to cover several years of the $36,000 income need.
Manage the conflict. Disclose the $8,000 payment in clear terms and ensure it does not influence the recommendation. If the adviser cannot objectively justify the product, the firm should decline or require senior review.
Independent check. For a complex, concentrated product sold to an older client with an income need, consider requiring a second adviser's sign-off and encouraging the client to obtain independent advice. The adviser should record what was explained, the client's questions, the alternatives considered, and why the product is in the client's best interest. If the client remains confused, do not proceed.