The Retiree and the Locked-In Investment Plan
Mrs Chan, aged 67, is a retired schoolteacher with HK$2.4 million in savings, a monthly pension of HK$9,000 and no dependants. She tells an agent at Golden Bridge Insurance Agency that she may need HK$500,000 within two years for a hip operation and wants a bit more interest than a deposit. The agent completes the risk profiling questionnaire himself, ticks high risk tolerance because Mrs Chan says she wants higher return, and records a 10-year investment horizon although she never mentioned one. He recommends a single-premium investment-linked policy with a HK$1.2 million premium, a 6% early surrender charge in the first three years, and a 3% annual charge. He gives her only the product illustration, does not compare alternatives, does not disclose his commission, and notes that the financial needs analysis was declined due to time. Mrs Chan signs on a tablet in the branch. The agency's file contains the signed application and illustration but no needs analysis or advice record.
1. Assess whether the sale satisfied suitability and disclosure requirements. Identify the specific failures.
Read the worked answer
The sale does not look suitable. Mrs Chan had a short-term liquidity need of HK$500,000 within two years, a modest pension relative to her savings, and no stated willingness to lock up funds for ten years. The agent confused willingness to earn a higher return with ability to bear risk and to accept illiquidity. Filling in high risk tolerance and a ten-year horizon without discussing them is not a proper risk profile.
A financial needs analysis should have established her objectives, time horizon, liquidity needs, risk tolerance, financial situation and existing cover. Declining the analysis is not a valid waiver that lets the agent recommend a complex investment-linked product. The agent also failed to explain the 6% early surrender charge and 3% annual charge in context, failed to compare reasonable alternatives such as deposits or simpler savings products, and failed to disclose commission or other conflicts. The agency, as licensee, is responsible for supervising its agent and keeping proper records.
2. What records should have existed, and how should the agency respond when Mrs Chan complains eight months later after the fund value falls?
Read the worked answer
The file should contain a completed financial needs analysis, a documented risk profile with the client's own responses, a product comparison or rationale for the recommendation, disclosure of charges and remuneration, and a record of advice explaining why the product suited her short-term liquidity need and attitude to risk. A signed application and illustration alone do not prove suitability. The agency should also retain training, supervision and complaint records.
When Mrs Chan complains, the agency should log the complaint, acknowledge it, preserve all records, and investigate rather than defend the sale automatically. It should interview the agent, check the tablet application trail, and review whether the risk profile was client-driven. It should report to the insurer and its compliance function as required, consider redress if the sale was unsuitable, and avoid asking Mrs Chan to sign away her rights. A fall in fund value alone is not proof of mis-selling, but the absence of suitability records makes the agency's position difficult.