White-Label Research and the House Top Picks
A wealth-management company is not registered as a research analyst. It licenses weekly reports from a registered RA, rebrands them as 'House Research', and adds a one-page 'Top Picks' with its own target prices and a model portfolio that it rebalances monthly. The licence says the reports must be distributed 'as is'. The wealth firm's investment strategist - an employee with a CFA but no RA registration - hosts a monthly YouTube webinar called 'Buy List Live', where he names three stocks and gives entry and exit prices. The firm earns broking commissions when clients trade. Its app shows the House Research tab and a disclaimer that says 'information only; not investment advice'. A client complains that the 'Top Picks' target was changed without explanation, and the strategist's webinar clip is circulating on social media.
1. Is the wealth firm acting as a research analyst or a person associated with research services, and what is the significance of the 'as is' licence?
Read the worked answer
A firm that merely distributes an unaltered third-party research report may be providing a non-core distribution service. But this firm does more: it rebrands the report as its own 'House Research', adds its own target prices, creates a model portfolio and rebalances it. Those are research recommendations prepared or published by the wealth firm, not mere distribution. The 'as is' licence is therefore breached, and the firm is acting as a research analyst/publisher without registration. The disclaimer 'information only; not investment advice' does not convert specific target prices and a model portfolio into neutral information. The firm must either stop adding its own recommendations and distribute the licensed reports unaltered with proper attribution, or obtain registration and put the necessary supervision, records and disclosures in place.
2. What about the strategist's monthly YouTube webinar?
Read the worked answer
The webinar is a public appearance. The strategist names stocks and gives entry and exit prices, which is a recommendation, not general education. If the firm is not registered, it is providing research services through him without registration. If it were registered, the public appearance would still need prior approval, a record of the script or recording, and the required disclosures. A CFA qualification is not the same as registration as a research analyst. The fact that the webinar is on YouTube and is later clipped and circulated increases the reach and the need for controls. The firm should suspend the 'Buy List Live' format until the registration and approval position is resolved, and should not rely on a disclaimer to cure specific buy and sell recommendations.
3. What remediation and disclosure steps are needed?
Read the worked answer
The firm should immediately withdraw or relabel the 'Top Picks' and model portfolio, stop presenting third-party reports as 'House Research', and either register as a research analyst or restrict itself to distributing the licensor's reports unaltered with clear attribution. It should review the licence and notify the licensor of the breach. The strategist's webinar should be suspended or converted into non-recommendation content, and all past episodes should be reviewed for specific calls. The firm should disclose its broking-commission conflict clearly, not in a generic footer, and explain how the model portfolio is managed. Clients who received the changed target should receive an explanation and, where appropriate, a correction. Records of the review, the revised distribution model and client communications should be retained. If registration is not obtained, the firm should take legal advice on whether any of its activities require a different licence.