The Autocallable Note and the Retired Principal
Faridah is 61 and retired last year from teaching. Investable assets: RM620,000 - RM300,000 from an EPF withdrawal, RM240,000 in fixed deposits maturing next month, and RM80,000 in a money market fund. Her pension is RM3,300 a month, and she supports a 24-year-old son who is unemployed. Her completed risk profile reads "moderate", with a stated five-year horizon and no need for income before age 70.
Her representative, Sunita, proposes placing RM430,000 - 70% of the portfolio - into a three-year autocallable note linked to a single Hong Kong-listed technology stock. The note pays 8% a year if not called; capital is unprotected and a 12% downside barrier applies. The issuer is a Labuan special-purpose vehicle rated A- by a regional agency. Sunita tells Faridah the product is "SC-approved and on the firm's approved list", and mentions that the sale will help her meet her annual target. Faridah admits she does not understand autocalls but says she "trusts Sunita".
1. Assess whether the recommendation is suitable. Which factors carry the most weight, and what would you do before any order is placed?
Read the worked answer
Suitability is a three-way test - client, product, fit - not a signature on a risk profile.
Client. The profile says "moderate", but the profile is stale and thin: it captures attitude, not capacity. Capacity is determined by the balance sheet. Faridah's only certain income is a RM3,300 pension supporting two adults, and the RM240,000 of deposits is her liquidity reserve and likely her medical buffer. Her horizon is stated as five years but her actual need for the money is indeterminate - she may need it at 65, not 70.
Product. An autocallable on a single technology stock is a concentrated equity-risk product with a path-dependent payoff. Faridah does not understand the call feature or the barrier, so she cannot form an informed view. The A- rating is the issuer's, not a guarantee of the underlying. "SC-approved" is irrelevant to suitability and misleading as presented: registration or authorisation of a product is not an endorsement of its merits, and the firm's approved list is a distribution permission, not a suitability judgement.
Fit. 70% into an illiquid, unprotected, single-name-linked note fails on concentration, liquidity and comprehension simultaneously. A defensible alternative would cap any structured allocation at a small single-digit percentage of investable assets, funded from deposits rather than the EPF money, and only after the payoff has been explained and evidenced.
Before placing an order I would redo the risk profiling with capacity questions (essential expenditure, dependants, health cover, access needs), record the mismatch in writing, and escalate to the supervisor. If she still insists, the firm must decide whether to accept an execution-only instruction - and document that decision.
2. Sunita disclosed her sales target to the client and described the product as "SC-approved". How should these two statements be handled, and what records should exist?
Read the worked answer
Both statements are conduct issues in their own right, independent of suitability.
The target disclosure. Disclosing a personal incentive to a client is not transparency - it is pressure. It reframes the conversation from "what suits you" to "what helps me", and it invites the client to weigh the representative's interest. The correct treatment is to remove incentive-driven pressure from the advisory process entirely: disclose conflicts at firm level, never use a personal target as a persuasive device, and ensure the firm's remuneration does not reward volume in a way that overrides suitability. The fact that Sunita felt able to say it out loud suggests supervision is weak.
The "SC-approved" claim. This is a material misrepresentation. Regulatory authorisation or registration of a product does not mean the regulator has assessed its suitability, safety or expected return, and saying so implies a safety net that does not exist. It must be corrected with the client in writing.
Records. The file should contain: the completed and dated risk profile with capacity data; the product's term sheet and risk disclosures actually given to the client; a written note of the recommendation and its rationale; evidence the SC-approval statement was corrected; the escalation to the supervisor and the supervisor's decision; and any client acknowledgement. If the order is placed, the client's understanding of the barrier and the autocall mechanic should be evidenced, not assumed. These records are what the firm will rely on if the client later complains or the regulator reviews the file, and their absence converts a defensible judgement into an indefensible one.
3. Faridah says she understands the risks and wants to proceed anyway. What is the correct professional response?
Read the worked answer
A client's instruction does not transfer the adviser's judgement to the client, but it does have to be respected within limits.
The response has three layers. First, re-confirm the facts: restate in plain language, in writing, that the capital is unprotected, that a 12% fall in the linked stock can crystallise a loss, that the note is illiquid for three years, and that 70% of her assets would be in one exposure with an issuer she has never dealt with. Ask her to describe the downside back to you - if she cannot, she is not giving informed consent.
Second, offer a reduced version. A materially smaller allocation funded from the maturing deposits, keeping the EPF money liquid, addresses the concentration and liquidity failings while respecting her wish to participate. An adviser who offers only "yes" or "no" has not done the job.
Third, if she still insists on the full amount, the firm - not the representative alone - must decide whether to accept the instruction. Executing it as an advised sale is not defensible while the file shows a mismatch. The available routes are: decline and record why; accept as an execution-only instruction with the client's signed acknowledgement that no advice was given and the product was not recommended; or escalate to compliance for a documented override. Whichever is chosen, the note must state what the client was told, what she said, who approved it and when. A verbal "she insisted" is worthless after a complaint. The representative should also consider whether continuing to act for a client she has just sold an unsuitable product to is in the client's interest.