The Top Producer Working From Home
Priya manages a six-AP branch of an FCM. Since March her top producer, Dell, has worked from home three days a week, takes customer orders on a personal cell phone, and emails order confirmations from a personal address. Branch written supervisory procedures (WSPs) require next-morning review of all order tickets and daily review of any account traded more than 20 times; Dell has been entering orders under a colleague's rep code 'to keep the queue clean.' Last week a customer complained that four trades were placed in her account after she said, 'stop everything until I call you.' Dell generated $410,000 of the branch's $1.2 million in commissions last year. Priya's regional supervisor says, 'He's registered and clean on his U-4 - just document the file.'
1. Identify the specific supervisory failures, and explain why Dell's registration status and clean disciplinary history do not answer them.
Read the worked answer
Registration establishes that Dell may act as an AP. It says nothing about whether the branch is supervising him.
Failures to name:
- Unsupervised off-site activity. A home location used for order-taking and customer contact is an unlisted place of business. The WSPs, if they address remote work at all, require approval, a designated supervisory structure, and system-based capture of communications. None exists.
- Uncaptured business communications. Orders and confirmations on a personal phone and personal email fall outside the firm's systems, so they are neither reviewed nor retained. That defeats both supervision and the retention obligation for business communications.
- Falsified order records. Entering tickets under another rep's code corrupts the order record and defeats the daily-review trigger for high-activity accounts. It is a record integrity problem, not a clerical shortcut.
- Defeated review design. The next-morning ticket review and 20-trade trigger are reasonably designed on paper but were not enforced. An unenforced WSP is a supervisory violation in its own right.
- Complaint handling. The 'stop everything' complaint is an escalated, unauthorized-trading allegation that was handled informally.
Production and a clean U-4 are mitigating facts about Dell, not defenses for Priya. Supervision is judged on the design and enforcement of the process, and the process here was bypassed.
2. Sequence Priya's actions over the next 10 business days. Be specific about investigation, customer remediation, escalation, and documentation.
Read the worked answer
Days 1-2: contain. Suspend the remote order-taking arrangement immediately, restore Dell to the branch or to a monitored system, and disable personal-channel order entry. Preserve the colleague's tickets, phone records, and email. Instruct Dell in writing not to delete anything.
Days 1-3: reconstruct. Pull every account Dell touched. Reconcile tickets against the rep-code misuse and identify all accounts traded without documented authorization, prioritizing the complaining customer.
Days 3-5: remediate. Review the complaining customer's four trades against the call record (or absence of one). If trades were unauthorized, escalate to compliance and legal for a make-whole decision, and correct the account. Check whether other customers in the sample show the same pattern - one complaint usually implies a sample, not an incident.
Days 5-7: escalate. Bring compliance and legal in on (a) the rep-code falsification, (b) the off-system communications, and (c) the complaint. Do not let the regional supervisor's 'document the file' instruction substitute for an actual review; document the instruction and Priya's objection to it.
Days 7-10: write it down. Produce a dated memo: what was found, what was done, who decided, what remains open. Amend the WSPs for remote work and rep-code integrity, and set a review date.
3. What should happen to Dell's outside-office arrangement pending resolution, and what record should Priya create?
Read the worked answer
The arrangement comes off pending completion of the review - not because Dell is presumed guilty, but because the controls that would have caught a problem are absent.
- Interim controls: Dell works from the branch or through firm systems with recorded lines and system-captured email; a second reviewer signs every ticket; no rep-code changes without approval.
- Customer-facing step: no need to alarm customers, but any account where authorization cannot be evidenced gets a written confirmation of positions and a documented conversation.
- Record to create: a supervisory memo that (1) states the date the remote arrangement was identified and suspended, (2) lists the accounts and tickets reviewed and the sample logic, (3) records the complaint and its disposition, (4) records the escalation to compliance/legal and the regional supervisor's instruction, and (5) lists the WSP amendments and the date of the follow-up test.
- Retention: file it where supervisory records are kept and keep it for the firm's required retention period.
The test of the memo is whether a regulator could read it in 18 months and see who knew what, when, and what changed.