個案總覽

The High-Impact Wealth Management case series is a portfolio of cases that are built around the high-impact theme. Each case in the series can stand on its own to deliver a unique learning objective; but, taken together, the cases are designed to cover all seven topics covered in the list of “common-cents” strategies.

The High-Impact Wealth Management case series is a portfolio of cases that are built around the high-impact theme. Each case in the series can stand on its own to deliver a unique learning objective; but, taken together, the cases are designed to cover all seven topics covered in the list of “common-cents” strategies.

The High-Impact Wealth Management case series is a portfolio of cases that are built around the high-impact theme. Each case in the series can stand on its own to deliver a unique learning objective; but, taken together, the cases are designed to cover all seven topics covered in the list of “common-cents” strategies.<br><br>Also refer to 9B16N031.

The High-Impact Wealth Management case series is a portfolio of cases that are built around the high-impact theme. Each case in the series can stand on its own to deliver a unique learning objective; but, taken together, the cases are designed to cover all seven topics covered in the list of “common-cents” strategies.

The chief compliance officer at NYR Financial Services (NYR) faces a decision-making dilemma regarding whether or not to increase a settlement offer to a client. This particular client has lodged a complaint against the investment firm, alleging that his money was inappropriately invested, given the risk tolerance level of his portfolio. The client believes that as a result of this mismanagement, he has lost over $100,000. The complaint has been reviewed by several panels of finance experts, including the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI), with the latter concluding that NYR owes the client a settlement of $40,000. NYR’s compliance officer must now decide between two options: meet the client somewhere in the middle, or inform the OBSI that NYR will not be following the panel’s recommendation. If NYR chooses the latter option, OBSI will go public with NYR’s refusal to abide by the ombudsman’s advice. See supplemental case 9B14N026.

Supplement to 9B14N023.

The chief compliance officer at NYR Financial Services (NYR) faces a decision-making dilemma regarding whether or not to increase a settlement offer to a client. This particular client has lodged a complaint against the investment firm, alleging that his money was inappropriately invested, given the risk tolerance level of his portfolio. The client believes that as a result of this mismanagement, he has lost over $100,000. The complaint has been reviewed by several panels of finance experts, including the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI), with the latter concluding that NYR owes the client a settlement of $40,000. NYR's compliance officer must now decide between two options: meet the client somewhere in the middle, or inform the OBSI that NYR will not be following the panel's recommendation. If NYR chooses the latter option, OBSI will go public with NYR's refusal to abide by the ombudsman's advice.

Supplement to case W14754.

The managing partner for Malvern Investment Services was faced with a dilemma. In two weeks, she would be hosting the firm's annual conference and would be announcing the Investment Advisor of the Year. Having narrowed down the list to four finalists she now had to make the final decision. This was her first conference as the managing partner and she knew that every announcement, presentation and interaction she had with her partners and staff would be scrutinized for hints of the firm's direction under her leadership. The choice she would make regarding the Investment Advisor of the Year award would be analyzed to determine the traits that she valued most highly in Malvern's best advisors. Each of the four advisors under consideration was highly regarded by branch managers, peers and clients. As she viewed the biographies, she wondered how to evaluate them with respect to the award.

The managing partner for Malvern Investment Services was faced with a dilemma. In two weeks, she would be hosting the firm’s annual conference and would be announcing the Investment Advisor of the Year. Having narrowed down the list to four finalists she now had to make the final decision. This was her first conference as the managing partner and she knew that every announcement, presentation and interaction she had with her partners and staff would be scrutinized for hints of the firm’s direction under her leadership. The choice she would make regarding the Investment Advisor of the Year award would be analyzed to determine the traits that she valued most highly in Malvern’s best advisors. Each of the four advisors under consideration was highly regarded by branch managers, peers and clients. As she viewed the biographies, she wondered how to evaluate them with respect to the award.

The morning of October 9, 2012 found the portfolio manager for the Thackery Real Estate Fund (TREF) lost in thought. TREF was a large investment fund that specialized in commercial and industrial real estate. While TREF had a number of investors, there was one large institutional investor, and it had asked for an update on the fund by week's end. Weighing on the portfolio manager's mind was a particular industrial park in Montreal, Quebec known as the Centre Corporate Abbott. He was focused specifically on a proposed investment that required $20 million to purchase a completed, tenanted building known as Building A. In 2008, the portfolio manager had bought two other adjacent properties for $17 million from the same developer. In making his decision, he knew that the economic news across the globe was not rosy. In Canada and Quebec, the manufacturing sector had still not overcome the challenges of 2008's Great Recession. For Quebec in particular, it also looked like the voters might be leaning towards another separatist government and news of corruption in the construction sector had become daily fodder. The portfolio manager wondered whether he should follow through with the investment and, if he did, how he would explain his recommendation to his investors as early as Friday.

The morning of October 9, 2012 found the portfolio manager for the Thackery Real Estate Fund (TREF) lost in thought. TREF was a large investment fund that specialized in commercial and industrial real estate. While TREF had a number of investors, there was one large institutional investor, and it had asked for an update on the fund by week’s end. Weighing on the portfolio manager’s mind was a particular industrial park in Montreal, Quebec known as the Centre Corporate Abbott. He was focused specifically on a proposed investment that required $20 million to purchase a completed, tenanted building known as Building A. In 2008, the portfolio manager had bought two other adjacent properties for $17 million from the same developer. In making his decision, he knew that the economic news across the globe was not rosy. In Canada and Quebec, the manufacturing sector had still not overcome the challenges of 2008’s Great Recession. For Quebec in particular, it also looked like the voters might be leaning towards another separatist government and news of corruption in the construction sector had become daily fodder. The portfolio manager wondered whether he should follow through with the investment and, if he did, how he would explain his recommendation to his investors as early as Friday.

At the end of 2001, the senior partners of an investment management firm were concerned. The bear market was going on two years, and, worse, the firm’s performance over that time had been less than that of the index. Clients, more than disappointed, were starting to vote with their feet. The firm, a top-10 player in Canada’s institutional investment business, had claimed client assets under management of more than $15 billion in 1998, but was now under serious threat. Without some change in the fortunes of the business, a continued loss of revenue would endanger its viability.<br><br>In the previous few years, the two senior partners had been working behind the scenes on an idea that they thought could return the business to success. The hitch was that the idea involved a radical transformation of the firm. While the senior partners had seen some success with the small steps they had taken with this new business model, they needed to ask their partners to commit to a still largely unproven strategy — a business model that not only had no known comparable model but that also ran contrary to contemporary views of how an asset management firm should be structured. Would their partners commit to the unproven plan?

At the end of 2001, the senior partners of an investment management firm were concerned. The bear market was going on two years, and, worse, the firm's performance over that time had been less than that of the index. Clients, more than disappointed, were starting to vote with their feet. The firm, a top-10 player in Canada's institutional investment business, had claimed client assets under management of more than $15 billion in 1998, but was now under serious threat. Without some change in the fortunes of the business, a continued loss of revenue would endanger its viability.<br><br>In the previous few years, the two senior partners had been working behind the scenes on an idea that they thought could return the business to success. The hitch was that the idea involved a radical transformation of the firm. While the senior partners had seen some success with the small steps they had taken with this new business model, they needed to ask their partners to commit to a still largely unproven strategy - a business model that not only had no known comparable model but that also ran contrary to contemporary views of how an asset management firm should be structured. Would their partners commit to the unproven plan?

Damien Duff was worried. When he graduated from business school five years ago, Damien had had a plan — a good one. The problem, of course, was that plans rarely unfold as expected. Damien and his wife, Katrina, were now expecting their first child. As Damien wrestled with the reality of this news, he took a quick look at his financial plans. Damien knew his career was on track, but his debt load was much higher than anticipated and he hadn’t started his retirement portfolio as planned. With a baby on the way, he knew the expenses would only accelerate. What to do — pay off the debt, start a registered education savings plan, or postpone the retirement savings plan still further?

James and Laura Wiggins had some decisions to make. Last year, James's father had died of a stroke. Death was not instantaneous, however, and the man had lingered in hospital for several weeks in a coma. During this time, no one had been able to access James's father's bank accounts (which were registered in the father's name only). This inability to access the accounts had caused James's mother considerable economic hardship, which impressed upon James the value of a power of attorney (POA). To that end, James asked his lawyer to prepare a power of attorney for him and Laura. James wanted Laura to sign the documents that night. Before signing, Laura had some reservations and a few questions she wanted James to answer. She didn't understand how a POA worked. Was it the same as a will? She and James didn't have a will. Would the POA satisfy both needs?

Mary Spencer was putting the final touches on her personal financial plan before graduating from the Richard Ivey School of Business HBA program in spring 2012. Generally, Mary was happy with her plan. Her goals, investment policy statement, and financial budget all made perfect sense to her. However, she kept returning to one number — a 43 per cent tax rate! It did not seem fair that just when she started to make some serious income, she would have to give 43 per cent of it to the government. During one of her courses, Mary had spent some time learning about tax strategies available to Canadians. They all seemed to involve three- and four-letter acronyms — TSFA, RSP, RHOSP, etc. — but she wondered which ones would have the optimal impact on her tax situation, and if there was a combination that would work best together.

Mary Spencer was putting the final touches on her personal financial plan before graduating from the Richard Ivey School of Business HBA program in spring 2012. Generally, Mary was happy with her plan. Her goals, investment policy statement, and financial budget all made perfect sense to her. However, she kept returning to one number - a 43 per cent tax rate! It did not seem fair that just when she started to make some serious income, she would have to give 43 per cent of it to the government. During one of her courses, Mary had spent some time learning about tax strategies available to Canadians. They all seemed to involve three- and four-letter acronyms - TSFA, RSP, RHOSP, etc. - but she wondered which ones would have the optimal impact on her tax situation, and if there was a combination that would work best together.

Damien Duff was worried. When he graduated from business school five years ago, Damien had had a plan - a good one. The problem, of course, was that plans rarely unfold as expected. Damien and his wife, Katrina, were now expecting their first child. As Damien wrestled with the reality of this news, he took a quick look at his financial plans. Damien knew his career was on track, but his debt load was much higher than anticipated and he hadn't started his retirement portfolio as planned. With a baby on the way, he knew the expenses would only accelerate. What to do - pay off the debt, start a registered education savings plan, or postpone the retirement savings plan still further?

James and Laura Wiggins had some decisions to make. Last year, James’s father had died of a stroke. Death was not instantaneous, however, and the man had lingered in hospital for several weeks in a coma. During this time, no one had been able to access James’s father’s bank accounts (which were registered in the father’s name only). This inability to access the accounts had caused James’s mother considerable economic hardship, which impressed upon James the value of a power of attorney (POA). To that end, James asked his lawyer to prepare a power of attorney for him and Laura. James wanted Laura to sign the documents that night.<br><br>Before signing, Laura had some reservations and a few questions she wanted James to answer. She didn’t understand how a POA worked. Was it the same as a will? She and James didn’t have a will. Would the POA satisfy both needs?