Referral Fee, Diminished Capacity, and a Lockup Product
Ken, a financial planning professional, has advised Ruth, 69, for six years. Ruth's portfolio is USD 800,000 and she takes USD 45,000 per year. She shows mild short-term memory loss; her doctor has not declared incapacity. Ruth wants to invest USD 300,000 in a private real estate fund recommended by Ken's brother-in-law, who would pay Ken a 1.5% referral fee. The fund has a seven-year lockup, a 2% management fee, and is suitable only for clients who can bear loss of principal. Ruth says she wants 'something safe that pays 9%.' Ken's firm policy requires written disclosure of referral fees but does not prohibit them. Ruth's daughter, who is not a client, calls and demands that Ken block the investment. Ken has not documented Ruth's capacity or the referral fee.
1. Identify the ethical and suitability issues Ken faces.
Read the worked answer
Ken faces a conflict of interest, a suitability problem, and a capacity concern. The 1.5% referral fee is compensation to Ken arising from the recommendation. Even though the firm permits it with disclosure, the fee creates an incentive to recommend the product, so Ken must disclose it in writing and obtain informed consent before any transaction. The product itself is inconsistent with Ruth's stated goal: a seven-year lockup, a 2% fee, and potential loss of principal are not 'safe,' and no one can promise 9% without significant risk.
Ruth's withdrawal need is USD 45,000, or 5.6% of her portfolio. Locking up USD 300,000 would leave USD 500,000 to support that withdrawal, raising the effective withdrawal rate and reducing liquidity. The suitability analysis therefore fails on liquidity and risk even before capacity is considered. The memory loss does not automatically mean incapacity, but it triggers a duty to assess whether Ruth understands the product, the lockup, the fees, and the conflict. Ken should not proceed until he documents that assessment.
2. What steps should Ken take before accepting or rejecting the investment?
Read the worked answer
Ken should pause the transaction and document the conversation. He should provide a written disclosure of the referral fee, the fund's fees, the lockup, the risk of loss, and the fact that a 9% return is not guaranteed. He should explain alternatives, including diversified liquid investments, and compare the fund against Ruth's income needs and risk tolerance. He should ask Ruth to explain back the key features; if she cannot, that is evidence of diminished capacity and he should not proceed.
Because capacity is uncertain, Ken should follow the firm's elder-client protocol. With Ruth's consent, he may involve a trusted contact or her attorney. If Ruth refuses consent and Ken reasonably believes she cannot understand the transaction, he should decline to execute it and escalate internally. If Ruth is capable, insists, and understands the risks, Ken may proceed only after full disclosure and documentation, but he still must determine that the investment is in her best interest. Given the lockup and her 5.6% withdrawal rate, declining the product is the more defensible recommendation. Ken should also consider whether the referral fee should be waived to remove the conflict.
3. How should Ken respond to Ruth's daughter, who demands that he block the investment?
Read the worked answer
Ken should listen respectfully but must not share Ruth's confidential information without Ruth's permission. He can acknowledge the daughter's concern, explain that he cannot discuss the account, and ask Ruth whether she wants her daughter included in a meeting. If Ruth agrees, Ken can explain the suitability analysis and the risks in a family meeting. The daughter's demand does not by itself authorize Ken to override Ruth's instructions while Ruth is legally capable.
However, the daughter's call is also a risk signal. Ken should document it, review whether there are signs of undue influence or exploitation, and follow the firm's escalation policy. If Ruth is capable, Ken's duty is to Ruth, not to the daughter. If Ruth lacks capacity or is being pressured, Ken should involve the appropriate trusted contact, power of attorney, or adult protective services as required by firm policy and law. In either case, Ken should not let the family conflict push him toward the referral-fee product; the suitability and conflict issues remain the same.