The deposit rollover that became a five-year policy
Mrs Cheung, 67, a retired cleaner with HK$850,000 in savings and a monthly pension of HK$6,000, visits her bank branch to roll over a maturing time deposit. A licensed insurance intermediary employed by the bank, who has never met her before, recommends a single premium ILAS of HK$800,000 with 100% premium allocation, invested in a "Stable Income Fund" holding 60% Asian high-yield bonds and 40% Asian equities. The surrender value is 92%, 95%, 98%, 100% and 100% of accumulated value in years 1–5. She is told it is "a deposit alternative paying 5% a year, and you can take it out whenever you like". In a 25-minute meeting she signs the application, a risk profile questionnaire scoring level 4 of 5, and the Important Facts Statement. The policy was delivered eight days later. Fourteen months on, she needs money for a medical operation and is told she will receive less than she paid in.
1. Identify the compliance failures in this sale, and explain what protection the 21-day cooling-off period does and does not give Mrs Cheung now.
Read the worked answer
Failures cluster around the client profile and the product terms.
- Risk profile inconsistency. Level 4 of 5 implies willingness to accept significant volatility, yet her circumstances - 67, retired, HK$850,000 of total savings, a HK$6,000 pension - point to capital preservation and liquidity. There is no record that the questionnaire was explained to her or completed by her rather than for her.
- No meaningful needs analysis. No discussion of medical contingencies, an emergency fund, or what happens if she needs the money in years 1–3.
- Misdescription. "Deposit alternative" and "take it out whenever you like". It is not a deposit, is not covered by the Deposit Protection Scheme, and the 92%/95%/98% surrender schedule means an early exit returns less than she paid.
- "5% a year" presented as if assured. The fund is 60% high-yield bonds and 40% equities; both income and capital are at risk.
- Process. Twenty-five minutes for an HK$800,000 single premium sale to an elderly first-time customer, with no post-sale confirmation step recorded.
Cooling-off: 21 days from delivery of the policy or the cooling-off notice, whichever is earlier. At 14 months it has long expired, so she has no right to cancel and recover her premium. What remains is the complaint route, the regulator and, potentially, a civil claim.
2. Allocate responsibility among the bank, the insurer and the HKIA. Was a 60/40 high-yield bond and Asian equity fund suitable for a 67-year-old retiree who may need the capital?
Read the worked answer
The bank is the appointed licensed insurance intermediary and its staff hold individual licences. The bank owes the conduct duties on the sale: know-your-client, suitability, disclosure, record-keeping and supervision of its sales staff.
The insurer is responsible for the product and for the distribution controls it imposes on appointed intermediaries - training, remuneration design, file checking, monitoring and, where necessary, terminating the appointment. It cannot distance itself from how its product is sold.
The HKIA supervises both insurers and licensed insurance intermediaries, investigates conduct complaints and can impose disciplinary sanctions, including pecuniary penalties, suspension or revocation of licences.
Suitability: on these facts, no. A 60/40 high-yield and equity fund has real downside; the five-year surrender schedule locks her capital away; and a client whose savings are her only cushion for medical costs needs liquidity and capital preservation, not a five-year commitment. A signed level-4 questionnaire does not make the sale suitable - the profile must reflect her actual circumstances, and the product must fit both her risk appetite and her capacity to bear loss. The "5% a year" framing also obscures that part of the return may be a return of her own capital. A suitable recommendation would have been a deposit, a short-duration bond fund, or a much smaller allocation with liquidity preserved.
3. The bank produces a signed risk profile (level 4) and a signed Important Facts Statement acknowledgment. Is that a defence? What evidence would the insurer and the regulator actually weigh?
Read the worked answer
No. Signatures are evidence, not a defence. The duty is to ensure the customer understands, not to obtain an acknowledgment.
What is actually weighed: the meeting or call recording; whether the questionnaire was read back and answered in her own words; whether she was given time to consider; the length of the meeting; whether the Important Facts Statement was explained in her language; the commission and any sales targets; this intermediary's sales pattern to other retirees; and whether she can explain the product afterwards.
Red flags here: the level-4 score sits oddly with her circumstances, and 25 minutes is short for a large single premium sale. If the file shows the questionnaire was coached or pre-filled, or the "deposit" language is on record, the signature strengthens the case against the intermediary rather than protecting it - it evidences a signed but unexplained document.
Realistic outcomes: if misrepresentation is substantiated, the insurer may unwind the policy or compensate the shortfall between surrender value and premiums, and the HKIA may discipline the intermediary. If the file is clean, the insurer may still offer a goodwill remedy, because the regulatory and reputational cost of a public dispute with an elderly customer usually exceeds the amount at stake.