The Adviser, the Spouse Distributor and the Cash Fee
Mr. D is a SEBI-registered individual investment adviser. He charges a client ₹60,000 a year as an advisory fee. His spouse owns a mutual fund distribution business that earns trail commission on the same client's existing mutual fund holdings; Mr. D has never disclosed this. The client, aged 75, has asked for a safe investment for ₹20 lakh that she may need for a hip replacement in 18 months. Mr. D recommends a five-year close-ended equity fund because it has a high past return and because his spouse's firm will receive distribution commission. He also accepts ₹25,000 in cash for a portfolio review, does not prepare a risk profile, and communicates only through personal WhatsApp. The client's existing portfolio is 85% equity. Mr. D says oral advice is enough because the client is old and does not read documents.
1. Identify the regulatory, ethical and suitability failures in this scenario.
Read the worked answer
The recommendation is unsuitable: a 75-year-old client needs ₹20 lakh in 18 months, so a five-year close-ended equity fund creates a severe liquidity and horizon mismatch. The existing 85% equity portfolio already exposes her to drawdown risk. No risk profile was prepared, so suitability cannot be demonstrated. Mr. D has a conflict of interest because his spouse's distribution firm earns commission on the recommended product and on existing holdings; this should have been disclosed in writing and managed, not hidden. As a SEBI-registered investment adviser, he must act as a fiduciary and must not receive commission; arranging advice around a spouse's commission is inconsistent with that duty. Accepting ₹25,000 in cash without proper invoicing creates tax, anti-money-laundering and record-keeping problems. Communicating only through personal WhatsApp and relying on oral advice defeats record-keeping and audit requirements. Treating the client as unable to read documents is both an ethical and a suitability failure; vulnerability requires more protection, not less.
2. What remedial and documentation steps should Mr. D take now? Include the spouse arrangement and client communication.
Read the worked answer
Stop the unsuitable recommendation and do not execute it. Put the client's immediate need first: segregate the ₹20 lakh into liquid, ultra-short-duration or fixed-deposit-like instruments matching the 18-month horizon, and review the 85% equity portfolio for the remaining funds. Prepare a fresh risk profile, capacity analysis and written suitability rationale. Disclose the spouse's distribution relationship and any commission in writing; if the conflict cannot be eliminated, decline to advise on those products or obtain informed consent after full disclosure. Move the ₹25,000 cash fee to a proper invoice and banking-channel payment, and correct the records. Issue a written advisory letter and retain WhatsApp or email records. Maintain client records, risk profiles, advice, consent and fee documents as required by the regulations. Apologise and explain the corrected advice in plain language, and offer the client the option of an independent review. Review all similar client files for the same conflict and documentation gaps.