A 1.4% Commission, a Branch Revenue Target, and a Client Who Needs Cash in 18 Months
Park Joon-ho, a certified planner at a mid-sized firm in Seoul, has advised 58-year-old Ms. Han for three years on a flat annual retainer. Ms. Han recently received a 320 million KRW inheritance and asked Park to place it. Park's firm has a newly created product-distribution arm that pays planners a 1.4% upfront commission on a particular equity-linked bond, and Park's branch manager has set a quarterly revenue target that weighs heavily in bonus decisions. Park calculates that the equity-linked bond would generate 4.5 million KRW for the branch, while a low-cost index fund alternative would generate nothing. The bond carries a five-year lock-up, with capital protection only at maturity and only if the issuer remains solvent. Ms. Han has said she may need 100 million KRW within eighteen months for her daughter's wedding and a home deposit, and she describes her risk appetite as 'not losing money.' Park's manager suggests presenting both products but emphasising the bond's 'guaranteed' structure.
1. Map the conflicts of interest in this engagement and state precisely what Park must do before presenting any product recommendation.
Read the worked answer
There are three distinct conflicts, not one.
1. Compensation conflict. The retainer does not immunise Park. A 1.4% upfront fee on 320 million KRW is about 4.48 million KRW, likely comparable to or larger than his annual fee from this client. The client must be told the fee in won, and told that the alternative pays the firm nothing.
2. Firm-level conflict. The distribution arm earns from placing the product, and the branch revenue target feeds Park's own bonus. His pay therefore depends on which product she buys - a classic principal-trading conflict that disclosure alone does not cure.
3. Conduct conflict. The instruction to emphasise a 'guaranteed' structure is a directive to frame a conditional feature as unconditional.
Before any recommendation Park should: give written disclosure of the commission amount and the zero-commission alternative; build a suitability file (need, horizon, liquidity, risk capacity) before discussing products; prepare a side-by-side written comparison so the client can evaluate both on the same page; and, if the firm's process cannot present the alternative fairly, decline to sell the product. The manager's instruction should be escalated to compliance in writing, with a dated record retained for the statutory retention period.
2. Is the equity-linked bond suitable given the stated 100 million KRW need within eighteen months and the client's 'not losing money' position? Justify with reference to the product's actual features.
Read the worked answer
No - it fails on two independent grounds, so no allocation size rescues it as a core holding.
Liquidity mismatch. The need is 100 million KRW inside 18 months; the product locks up for five years and exits at market value. Any amount above 220 million KRW (320 minus 100) creates a forced-sale risk at exactly the wrong moment. The 100 million must sit in money market funds, short deposits or stepped certificates - instruments whose value does not depend on a secondary market.
The word 'protection' means something narrower than the client hears. Capital protection applies only at maturity and only if the issuer pays. That is credit exposure to a single obligor, not a deposit insured under the depositor protection framework. If the issuer's spread widens, the bond's secondary price falls and an early exit realises a loss even though the client 'bought protection.'
Fit with stated preference. 'Not losing money' is a nominal-loss aversion. A mark-to-market instrument that can print a loss at any time before year five contradicts it. The recommendation should be: reserve the 100 million in cash-equivalent assets, then test whether the remaining 220 million fits a conditional-protection product at all - and present the low-cost alternative with its actual volatility range rather than a label.
3. How should Park respond to the manager's suggestion to present both products but emphasise the 'guaranteed' structure?
Read the worked answer
He should refuse the framing while keeping the substance of a two-product presentation.
The conduct rules Park works under require that marketing not omit material facts and that the client be given an explanation sufficient to understand the product, including the possibility of principal loss. Describing a maturity-and-issuer-contingent feature as 'guaranteed' is an omission of the two conditions that matter - timing and credit - and would be an unfair sales practice even if a disclaimer appears in a footnote. A disclosure buried in a document does not cure a misleading oral emphasis.
Practical sequence: (1) present the comparison in writing with the conditions stated in the same sentence as the protection; (2) make and retain a contemporaneous record of what was said, because the disputed fact in any later complaint will be the oral explanation; (3) escalate the instruction in writing to compliance rather than resolving it verbally with the manager; (4) if the firm's process cannot support a fair comparison, do not sell - the client's interest prevails over the revenue target; (5) note that pressure tied to a bonus target is itself a reportable conduct issue.
If she buys the bond elsewhere after a fair comparison, the file should show that Park recommended the alternative and why. Documentation is the planner's protection when the product underperforms.