The Adviser Who Is Also an Agent
Rohit is a SEBI-registered individual investment adviser. He is also a NISM-certified mutual fund distributor and a life insurance agent. His client Asha, 58, is retiring with a Rs. 1.2 crore corpus. She says capital protection matters most to her, and she needs Rs. 40 lakh in about six years for a house. Rohit uses a risk-profiling questionnaire that he wrote himself; it scores Asha as 'aggressive growth'. He recommends 55% in small-cap and sectoral equity funds of a single AMC, on which he personally earns 1.1% trail; 25% in an equity-linked insurance policy with a Rs. 1 lakh annual premium, on which he earns 25% first-year commission; and 20% in a five-year debt fund. His wife is a whole-time director of that AMC. Asha signs a one-page advisory agreement only after the first purchase has been executed.
1. Assess the suitability of the recommendation against Asha's stated position. What has gone wrong, and where in the process did it go wrong?
Read the worked answer
The recommendation is unsuitable, and the failure starts in the risk-profiling step.
- A risk profile has two limbs: ability to bear loss (capacity - income, corpus, horizon, liquidity needs) and willingness (attitude). Neither supports 'aggressive growth' here. Asha is 58, has stated capital protection as her priority, and has a hard, dated liability - Rs. 40 lakh in six years - that cannot be met from a volatile portfolio without sequencing risk.
- 55% in small-cap and sectoral funds is the most volatile end of the equity market, concentrated in one AMC, with a 6-year hard goal. A 30–40% drawdown in year 4 or 5 would leave the house purchase unfunded. Sectoral funds add concentration risk on top of size risk.
- A self-authored questionnaire that yields 'aggressive' for this client is a process defect. A tool designed by the person who profits from an aggressive answer is not an independent suitability check. The output should have been challenged against the stated need, and the client's own words recorded.
- Sequencing error: the advisory agreement was signed after execution. Advice, profiling, agreement and consent should precede the transaction; otherwise the client never had the chance to understand the terms, fees and conflicts before committing.
Remedy: redo profiling with documented capacity and willingness, ring-fence the Rs. 40 lakh in instruments matched to the 6-year date, treat the balance separately, and record the reasons for every recommendation.
2. Rohit earns trail from the AMC whose funds he recommended, earns first-year commission on the insurance policy, and his wife is a director of that AMC. How should each of these be handled?
Read the worked answer
Each is a distinct conflict and each needs a distinct response; disclosure alone is the floor, not the ceiling.
- Trail from the recommended AMC. An adviser may not let distribution income drive advice. Options: (a) operate as a fee-only adviser and rebate/forgo commission, or (b) keep distribution as a separately consented, separately contracted service with the client told in writing, before the transaction, the exact commission/trail on each product, and with the advisory fee adjusted so the client is not paying twice for the same service. Recommending only products that pay trail, from one AMC, is itself evidence the conflict is operating.
- Insurance commission (25% first year). Insurance is not a 'security'; advice on it sits outside the SEBI advisory permission and must be handled under the separate insurance licence with its own disclosure and suitability obligations. Bundling an insurance product into what is presented as a securities portfolio recommendation blurs the two roles and makes the recommendation look product-pushed. To meet a 6-year goal, an equity-linked policy with lock-in and charges is a poor match and the recommendation must be justified or withdrawn.
- Spouse's directorship at the AMC. This is a material personal interest in the manufacturer whose products are being recommended. It must be disclosed in writing to the client (and to the firm's compliance/principal officer) before the advice, and the cleanest course is recusal: no recommendation on that AMC's schemes. Disclosure does not cure a recommendation that is also unsuitable.
Common thread: document the conflict register, the disclosure acknowledgement, and the 'why this product for this client' rationale; keep fee and commission flows in separate client-facing statements.
3. What should a properly executed advisory agreement and record set have contained before the first rupee moved?
Read the worked answer
The agreement should have been in place before any advice or execution, and should have set out at minimum:
- Scope and services - what is advised (securities only) and what is not (insurance, real estate, tax filing), and the mode of advice.
- Fees - the fee basis and amount, payment terms, and the 2.5% of assets under advice per annum cap where fees are charged on AUA; separately, the commission/trail receivable on any product recommended, stated in rupees or percentage.
- Conflicts - the distribution and insurance arrangements, the spouse's directorship, and how conflicts are managed (recusal, segregation).
- Client-side inputs - the completed risk profile with capacity and willingness, the client's stated goals with dates and amounts, and the client's signed acknowledgement that the profile reflects her position.
- Suitability rationale - a short record for each recommendation linking product to goal, horizon and risk.
- Termination, grievance redressal - escalation matrix, the firm's complaint-handling route, and the client's right to approach SEBI/SCORES.
- Consents - for advice, for any execution/distribution service, and for the fee debit.
Asha should also have received a copy of the signed agreement and the disclosure document. The 'one page signed afterwards' version fails on nearly every limb, and the missing paper trail is the firm's biggest exposure if she complains.