The A-to-C Exchange in a 24-Year IRA
A representative submits an exchange for your approval: $60,000 of Class A shares of the Halden Balanced Fund held in a client's Roth IRA for four years, exchanged into Class C shares of the same fund. The ticket reads "client wants to avoid sales charges." The client is 41, maximizes IRA contributions every year, has a 24-year horizon, and has told the rep she does not need the money. Class A shares carry a 0.25% annual 12b-1 fee, and the load was paid at purchase. Class C shares carry a 1.00% 12b-1 fee and a 1% contingent deferred sales charge in year one. Exchanges within the fund family are made at NAV with no additional sales charge. A new Class A purchase of $60,000 would incur a 3.50% load.
1. Evaluate the recommendation with numbers and state your decision.
Read the worked answer
The exchange moves money within the same fund family at NAV, so it saves no load at all, because there is no new sales charge to avoid. The certain economics run the other way:
- 12b-1: 0.25% to 1.00% = 0.75% per year, about $450 in year one on $60,000, charged every year thereafter.
- A 1% CDSC in year one if she needs liquidity.
- Over 24 years a 0.75% annual drag cuts ending value by roughly 16% (1.0075^24 is about 1.20), independent of any return assumption.
"No sales charge" is a legitimate argument for Class C only when writing a new check for a short holding period. Here the load was paid four years ago, the account is tax-deferred, and the client has the longest horizon on your book.
Decision: reject. The rep's compensation also shifted toward a recurring trail, which is a conflict requiring a documented, defensible rationale, and there is none here.
2. The trade turns out to have been processed before your review. What do you do, and does the client's agreement cure it?
Read the worked answer
Unwind it. A same-family exchange back into Class A at NAV costs the client nothing, restores the lower expense ratio, and removes the CDSC, so remediation is clean and cheap.
A client's acquiescence does not cure an unsuitable recommendation. Suitability and the care obligation run to what the member recommends, not to what the customer will sign. Document the reversal, the reason, and the client conversation; if she genuinely prefers Class C for future small monthly contributions that would never reach a breakpoint, that can be analyzed separately for those dollars, but it does not justify converting $60,000 of already-loaded A shares.
3. What supervisory follow-up does this trigger beyond the single trade?
Read the worked answer
Treat a single bad exchange as a symptom and test the population:
- Pull 12 months of this rep's exchanges and purchases for any A-to-C pattern, repeat switching, or exchanges shortly after a purchase (Rule 2341's exchange provisions require reasonable grounds to believe an exchange is suitable; repeated switching also invites a Rule 2010 review).
- Examine how share-class recommendations are made and whether the firm's platform, compensation grid, or pre-approved list nudges reps toward higher-trail classes.
- Confirm the principal-approval record actually contains reasoning, not just a signature, and retains it per Rule 2210-style record practices and Rule 4511.
- Retrain on breakpoint math and holding-period analysis.
If several reps show the same skew, the fix is a compensation or platform change, not a coaching note.