The Retired Teacher and the Airbag Note
You are the compliance officer of Harbourview Securities, a Type 1 licensed broker. A private banking relationship manager, Ms Cheung, meets Mr Wong, a 72-year-old retired teacher. Mr Wong's risk profile, completed two years earlier, records 'conservative, no leverage, maximum 10% in equities'. Ms Cheung recommends a 5-year 'Principal Protected' note linked to three technology stocks, issued by a single bank, with a 1.5% annual fee and a 10% 'airbag' trigger. The note is a complex product. Mr Wong says he does not understand the trigger but 'trusts' Ms Cheung. Ms Cheung asks him to sign a new risk profile form that she has pre-filled as 'aggressive'; he signs without reading. She also arranges for him to borrow HK$1.2 million from a finance company to invest HK$2 million in the note. The trade is executed the same day. Three months later, the note falls 18% and Mr Wong's daughter complains.
1. Identify the suitability and conduct failures in this sale.
Read the worked answer
Failures. The recommendation is unsuitable for Mr Wong. He is 72, retired, conservative, and his profile prohibits leverage and limits equities to 10%. The note is a five-year complex product linked to three technology stocks, issued by a single bank, with an airbag trigger he does not understand. The 'principal protected' label is misleading: protection depends on the issuer's credit and only applies at maturity, and the 18% fall shows the market risk. Ms Cheung also arranged a HK$1.2 million loan to fund a HK$2 million investment. That is leverage, contrary to the profile, and raises affordability and vulnerability issues. Pre-filling the risk profile as 'aggressive' and having Mr Wong sign without reading is a falsification of the client record and a breach of honesty. The firm failed in KYC, product due diligence, suitability, disclosure and record keeping. The RM also failed to obtain informed consent for a complex product. These are breaches of paragraph 5.2 of the Code of Conduct and the SFC's complex-product requirements.
2. What should the firm have done before executing the trade?
Read the worked answer
Before execution. The firm should have started with a proper KYC and risk-profile interview, without pre-filling. It should have assessed Mr Wong's investment knowledge, experience, financial situation and tolerance for loss. It should have performed product due diligence on the note, including issuer credit risk, liquidity, the airbag trigger, fees and the meaning of 'principal protected'. It should have matched the product to the client and concluded that it was unsuitable. If Mr Wong still wanted to proceed, the firm could have treated it as an execution-only transaction only if the legal requirements were met, but that is doubtful where advice was given. The RM should have explained the risks in plain language, provided the offering documents, and recorded the rationale. The leverage should have been separately assessed and declined. A second sign-off by a supervisor should have been required for a complex product sold to a vulnerable client. When Mr Wong said he did not understand, that was a stop signal.
3. What are the likely regulatory consequences and what remediation should the firm undertake?
Read the worked answer
Consequences and remediation. The firm should suspend Ms Cheung pending investigation, preserve all records, and review every account she has handled. It should notify the SFC promptly, because the conduct may involve falsification of records, mis-selling and breaches of the Code of Conduct. The SFC can take disciplinary action against the firm and the RM, including fines, suspension or revocation of licence, and may refer the forgery issue to the police. The firm should contact Mr Wong, explain the position, consider unwinding the note or compensating him, and handle the daughter's complaint through a documented complaints process. It should also strengthen controls: independent risk profiling, supervisor approval for complex products, leverage checks, sales-call recording, file review and training. The firm is responsible for the conduct of its licensed representatives and cannot rely on the client's signature where the RM procured it by deception.