Six funds, two exposures
Mr Lee, 45, has held a single premium ILAS worth HK$1.6 million for four years. On his adviser's suggestion he selected six funds: Greater China Growth, Asia Pacific Equity, Hong Kong Equity, China Consumption, Asian Bond and Global Emerging Markets. The annual statement shows Greater China Growth 25%, China Consumption 20%, Hong Kong Equity 15%, Asia Pacific Equity 15%, Global Emerging Markets 15% and Asian Bond 10%. He believes the spread of six funds means he is well diversified. He now asks to move the entire Asian Bond holding (HK$160,000) into China Consumption, because he saw a news report about stimulus measures, and says he will "switch back after the rally". The product allows four free switches a year and charges 1% of the switched amount thereafter; instructions received before 4 p.m. on a business day are priced at that day's forward price, which is not known when the instruction is given.
1. Quantify and explain Mr Lee's real diversification. Is his belief that he holds six different exposures justified?
Read the worked answer
Look through the labels. Greater China Growth (25%), China Consumption (20%) and Hong Kong Equity (15%) together make 60% of the portfolio, and they overlap heavily in the same mainland and Hong Kong listed names - typically the same internet, financial and consumer platforms appear in all three top-ten lists. Asia Pacific Equity (15%) is commonly 40–50% China and Hong Kong by weight; Global Emerging Markets (15%) typically holds a quarter to a third in China. On reasonable assumptions his effective China plus Hong Kong exposure is somewhere around 60–70% of the whole portfolio, and the correlations between the "six" funds are high.
The genuine diversifier is the 10% Asian Bond holding - his only fixed income and the only asset with a different return driver.
Currency is a second layer. The Hong Kong dollar is pegged to the US dollar, so US dollar assets carry little translation risk for him, while renminbi and other Asian currency exposure does.
Key judgement: holding more funds is not diversification. Diversification comes from different underlying exposures, sectors, geographies and asset classes. Six funds holding the same fifty stocks is a concentrated portfolio with six layers of fees.
2. Assess the proposed HK$160,000 switch into China Consumption. What should the intermediary do, and what must be documented if Mr Lee insists?
Read the worked answer
Consider what the switch actually does. It converts his only defensive holding into a single-sector equity fund that is already 20% of the portfolio, on the basis of a news headline, with an exit plan built on timing a reversal. After the switch, China Consumption would be roughly 30% of the portfolio and total China exposure even higher, with the bond stabiliser gone at precisely the point where his equity funds move together.
What the intermediary should do: restate the concentration analysis in numbers; explain that a single-theme fund can fall further and that nobody can reliably time the turn; test the switch against his risk profile and objective and point out if it sits above the profile for that money; and offer alternatives - redirect into a global or developed-market fund, keep part of the bond allocation, or switch in stages rather than in one instruction.
If he insists, treat it as a client-directed, non-advised instruction: record the advice given, his reasons for rejecting it, confirmation that the concentration and timing risks were explained, and his instruction in writing. Do not later describe it as a recommendation. Revisit the risk profile, because the portfolio's risk level has changed materially. Note that a switch is not a new policy, so no cooling-off period applies, and the forward price means the outcome is unknown at the moment he decides.
3. Explain the mechanics and frictions of the switch: forward pricing, the free-switch allowance and the 1% charge, and what could leave him worse off than he expects.
Read the worked answer
Forward pricing. Instructions before the cut-off are dealt at the next valuation point, which is unknown when he gives the instruction. He will not get the price he saw. In a volatile market the executed price can differ materially, which matters most when the decision is made on a short-term news catalyst.
Costs. The "four free switches" allowance is usually counted per policy year, not calendar year, so check how many he has already used. Once exhausted, the 1% charge applies to the amount switched - HK$1,600 here - so a "free" switch stops being free, and frequent switching can cost more than the timing gains it chases.
Fund-level frictions. Switching between funds crosses two bid-offer spreads, and the target fund may impose a dilution or anti-dilution levy, particularly a small or illiquid single-market fund. The target may also hold cash for redemptions, which creates tracking drag.
Timing gap. If the insurer redeems and then purchases at separate valuation points, he is out of the market for a day or more and bears whatever the market does in between.
The judgement: the round trip out of bonds, into China Consumption and back again must beat its own costs before it makes a cent. That should be explained before execution, not afterwards when the value has fallen.