The Nevada Wire, the Shaky Signature, and a 21% Cost-to-Equity Ratio
Arun, 81, has been your client for nineteen years. His wife died nine months ago. In the last three weeks he has called four times, twice asking what day it is, and once asking you to wire $250,000 to a Nevada account titled to 'Kimberly R.,' a 'new friend who is helping me with my affairs.' He signed a letter of authorization, but the signature is shaky and he gives inconsistent answers about the purpose. His daughter, who is not on the account, calls you in tears. Separately, you pull the history: $150,000 average monthly equity, $960,000 of purchases last year, $31,500 in commissions and markups, and his long-held A-share funds switched into C-shares six months ago.
1. You have a signed letter of authorization and a client who seems confused. What do you do before, during, and after the wire request, and what can you tell the daughter?
Read the worked answer
Do not wire. The pattern is textbook: recent widowhood, isolation, confusion about the date, inconsistent purpose, a shaky signature, a new 'friend' who is 'helping with affairs,' and a large out-of-state transfer. The letter of authorization does not cure any of it.
Same day.
- Escalate to your firm's senior-investor or compliance group in writing. Do not sit on this until the end of the week.
- Check whether a trusted contact is designated under FINRA Rule 4512. If one is, and it is not the person suspected of the exploitation, notify them.
- Consider a temporary hold under FINRA Rule 2165, which lets a member that reasonably believes financial exploitation has been or will be attempted place a hold on the disbursement - initially up to 25 business days, extendable by 15 - and notify the trusted contact. That buys time for adult protective services or a family member to act.
- Report to state adult protective services as required by your state's elder-financial-exploitation statute; many states mandate reporting by financial professionals.
- Document contemporaneously: the calls, the dates, the inconsistencies, the exact words.
The daughter. She is not on the account, so Regulation S-P and state privacy law bar you from confirming or discussing account information - you cannot tell her the balance, the wire request, or that a hold exists. You can listen to her concerns without confirming or denying anything, and you can explain generically how to pursue guardianship or conservatorship and that she may contact adult protective services. If she is the designated trusted contact, Rule 2165 permits you to notify her of the hold.
Do not tip off the acquaintance if 'Kimberly' calls. After: if a guardian or the family obtains authority, act on that. If the client is found to have capacity and the concern clears, honor his instruction - with a written record that you recommended against it and why.
2. Evaluate the trading pattern. Show the computation and identify what the firm and the representative must be able to defend.
Read the worked answer
Compute the two measures.
- Turnover = total purchases ÷ average equity = $960,000 ÷ $150,000 = 6.4.
- Cost-to-equity = commissions and markups ÷ average equity = $31,500 ÷ $150,000 = 21%.
Why that is a problem. A 21% cost-to-equity ratio means the account must earn 21% a year just to break even against costs, for an 81-year-old with no stated growth objective. Turnover of 6.4 means the account is turned over more than six times a year. Both sit squarely in the range that has traditionally supported an excessive-trading finding; together they are hard to explain as anything but a commission-generating pattern.
The rule. FINRA Rule 2111 imposes three obligations: reasonable basis, customer-specific, and quantitative. Quantitative suitability applies where the representative has actual or de facto control over the account and asks whether a series of recommended transactions is excessive given the client's objectives. Control is the first element to analyze:
- Is there discretion, written or informal? An 81-year-old who takes every recommendation without question, does not review statements, and has been with the same representative for years can support de facto control even with no written discretionary authorization.
What must be defensible.
- That each transaction was suitable and that the series was not excessive.
- That compensation did not drive the recommendations.
- That the client approved the activity - which is not a defense where de facto control exists; 'he signed every ticket' does not answer a churning claim.
- That supervision under Rules 3110 and 3012 caught the turnover and cost-to-equity and acted. If exception reports never fired on a 21% cost-to-equity ratio, that is a separate supervisory failure.
Next steps. Escalate to compliance, expect a remediation and possibly a rescission analysis, a Rule 4530 termination report if the conduct is confirmed, and an arbitration claim from the client. Do not touch the account until compliance has reviewed it.
3. Evaluate the A-share to C-share switch for this client.
Read the worked answer
The cost comparison. A typical Class A schedule is 5.75% under $50,000, 4.50% from $50,000 to $99,999, and 3.50% from $100,000 to $249,999, with a 0.25% annual 12b-1 fee. Class C typically carries no front-end load, a 1.00% CDSC only in the first year, and a 1.00% annual 12b-1 fee. The ongoing difference is about 0.75% a year.
Break-even. 3.50% upfront ÷ 0.75% per year ≈ 4.7 years. Under about 4.7 years, C shares are cheaper; over, A shares are. At an average equity near $150,000, the client had already reached the 3.50% breakpoint - which is the entire reason the breakpoint schedule exists.
Why the switch is wrong here. He already owned A shares. The load was paid years ago and is sunk. Switching to C shares does not recover it; it adds a higher ongoing fee to a position that had already cleared its cost hurdle, and if the switch happened within a year of purchase it may also have triggered a CDSC. The legitimate uses of C shares are a short expected holding period or an amount too small to reach a breakpoint. At $150,000 with an income objective held for the long term, neither applies.
What it looks like. Combined with the turnover and cost-to-equity figures, an A-to-C switch in the same account is pattern evidence, not an isolated recommendation - the kind of transaction that supports a finding the representative was managing to a compensation grid rather than to the client's objective.
What should have happened. If a switch was genuinely warranted, use the rights of accumulation and a letter of intent to reach the next breakpoint, or a lower-cost share class the fund offers. Before any switch in a senior account, write the reason in the file - the fact that this reason is hard to write down is the answer.