Onboarding a Retired Client for Crude Oil Futures
Ahmed, a 63-year-old retired schoolteacher, approaches a PMEX member broker in Lahore. His total liquid savings are PKR 4.5 million; he wants to place PKR 3.6 million as margin for crude oil futures and expects a 30% annual return. He has no prior derivatives experience and his only regular income is a pension of PKR 85,000 per month; his spouse depends on him. The relationship manager records his risk profile as "aggressive" because Ahmed ticked "willing to take risk" on a five-question form. The account file has no documented investment objective, no evidence of trading experience, and no source-of-funds verification beyond a bank statement. The relationship manager tells him "oil always recovers, so you cannot lose much if you wait." Compliance must decide whether to approve the account before the next contract expiry.
1. What onboarding deficiencies exist, and what must compliance obtain and verify before approving the account?
Read the worked answer
The file is deficient on several grounds. The risk profile is a single tick-box and is inconsistent with Ahmed's age, pension-only income, dependent spouse and lack of derivatives experience. There is no documented investment objective, horizon or liquidity need; no verification of source of funds and wealth beyond a bank statement; and no evidence that Ahmed understands leverage, margin calls or the possibility of losing more than his initial margin. The signed risk disclosure is also missing or undocumented.
Before approval, compliance should obtain a full fact-find, independent verification of the savings and pension, a written investment objective, evidence of any prior trading, and a signed and dated risk disclosure in a language Ahmed understands. A fresh suitability assessment should be completed rather than simply re-ticking "aggressive." The file must record why a client with PKR 4.5 million in liquid savings and a dependent spouse can or cannot bear a PKR 3.6 million exposure. If Ahmed cannot demonstrate understanding of margin calls and total loss, the account should not be approved for futures.
2. Is the proposed allocation suitable? Give a reasoned decision and any conditions you would impose.
Read the worked answer
The proposal is 80% of liquid savings committed to initial margin in a volatile, leveraged contract. A 4% adverse price move can eliminate a 5% margin; crude oil can gap more than that on geopolitical events. Ahmed's pension covers living costs but not a large capital loss, and he has no derivatives experience. "Willing to take risk" is not the same as "able to bear loss."
Approval should be refused unless Ahmed, after a documented cooling-off period, gives an independent written instruction and the broker imposes a much lower exposure limit, for example risk capital capped at a small fraction of his savings. Even then, the broker should record a reasoned exception and set a lower leverage limit, a written margin-call protocol and close monitoring. The expected 30% annual return is not a suitability justification. If the client insists on the full allocation, the appropriate decision is to decline the futures account and document the refusal.
3. What supervisory action is needed for the relationship manager's statement and for the file record?
Read the worked answer
The statement "oil always recovers, so you cannot lose much if you wait" is misleading and could be treated as a guarantee-like representation. It must be corrected in writing to Ahmed, retained on file, and reviewed as a conduct breach. The relationship manager's other files should be sampled to see whether the same sales approach was used elsewhere, and remediation may include retraining, closer supervision or disciplinary action.
The broker should also check whether sales scripts or incentives encourage unsuitable concentration. Compliance should record its decision, rationale, client communications and any refusal in the CRM so that a later dispute can be evidenced. If the client was already given the impression that losses were unlikely, the firm should not rely on a later signed risk disclosure without confirming that the client understood the correction.