The Widow, the Leveraged ETF, and the Wire Request
R. Patel is 79, widowed, a retired teacher with $640,000 at the firm and $42,000 of annual Social Security and pension income. Her stated objective is 'preserve capital, some income.' Her rep, M. Chen, recommended 74 trades in the past twelve months generating $19,800 in commissions and markups, built a 38% position in a 3x leveraged semiconductor ETF, and sold a variable annuity with a seven-year surrender schedule. In March Patel calls the service desk to wire $150,000 to a person she met online and calls her fiancé; she has never met him in person, cannot describe his work, and begins crying when the associate asks follow-up questions. Chen is on vacation.
1. Evaluate Chen's recommendations under Regulation Best Interest.
Read the worked answer
Reg BI's care obligation has three prongs, and the file must satisfy each.
Reasonable basis. A 3x leveraged ETF is a daily-reset product designed for short holding periods; a 38% position is a concentrated, volatility-sensitive bet that is hard to defend for a capital-preservation objective. A seven-year surrender annuity for a 79-year-old with income needs raises similar questions about time horizon and liquidity.
Customer-specific. Income of $42,000 against $640,000 of assets, an explicit preservation objective, and no documented risk tolerance discussion in the file. Each recommendation needs a documented rationale tied to her actual circumstances.
Quantitative suitability. 74 trades and $19,800 of costs is roughly a 3% annual cost-to-equity drag before the product costs. Whether or not it crosses a bright line, the series must be justified as a whole; volume that tracks the rep's compensation rather than her objectives is the classic failure pattern.
If the file contains no contemporaneous rationale, the honest supervisory conclusion is that the recommendations are not documented as being in her best interest, and the firm should consider remediation and heightened supervision.
2. Can the firm hold the wire? Walk through the authority and the limits.
Read the worked answer
Yes, but only within a defined window and with documentation.
Authority. Under FINRA Rule 2165, a firm with reasonable belief that financial exploitation of a 'specified adult' (age 65 or older, or an adult with a mental or physical impairment) has occurred, is occurring, or will be attempted may place a temporary hold on a disbursement. The initial hold is up to 15 business days, extendable by up to 10 more.
Conditions. Rule 2165 requires written procedures, a reasonable belief articulated in writing, prompt internal review by a designated principal, and notice to the trusted contact and to the customer (subject to the rule's exceptions). Records of the hold and the basis must be kept.
Limits. The hold is not permanent. When the window closes the firm must release the funds unless another lawful basis exists - for example, a legal instruction, a court order, or state adult-protective-services action. Firms also must follow state law, some of which provides separate or longer authority.
Practical step. This fact pattern - a never-met fiancé, evasiveness, distress - is close to a textbook exploitation indicator. Escalate to a principal immediately rather than letting the service desk make the call.
3. What supervisory escalation and documentation should follow, and how does the trusted contact fit in?
Read the worked answer
Same day. Principal-level review of the wire request; contact the trusted contact on file (Rule 4512 requires reasonable efforts to obtain one); document the customer's statements verbatim where possible; consider notifying adult protective services or law enforcement consistent with firm policy and state law.
Within days. Open a senior-investor case file; notify the rep's supervisor; review the last twelve months of activity on the account for unusual disbursements, address changes, or new bank links.
Trusted contact caveat. The trusted contact is a designated person to reach in exactly this situation - but the contact has no authority to transact, and the firm may not disclose the customer's account information to that person beyond what the rules permit.
Follow-through. Reassess the account's suitability profile and consider whether the concentration and annuity sale should be unwound or frozen pending review. If Chen's recommendations are found deficient, document the supervisory action and evaluate U4 and Rule 4530 implications.