The Big Tabu: Facing the Financial Industry’s Older, Impaired Financial Advisors

The Big Tabu: Facing the Financial Industry’s Older, Impaired Financial Advisors

At its Senior Protection Conference on November 12, 2019, FINRA took a cell phone poll of broker-dealers. They wanted to find out how many were worried about aging registered representatives at their firms.  The result: 65% were worried, according to the report published in Financial Advisor.  Yes, aging B-Ds are a problem.

Here at AgingInvestor.com, we’ve been sounding the alarm about this problem since 2016, when we published our book, Succeed With Senior Clients: A Financial Advisor’s Guide to Best Practices. “The Elephant in the Room” chapter dives into how impairment in advisors affects the industry and how that most definitely will affect their work with clients. A B-D or advisor whose memory and judgment are impaired, even in the early stages, can expose the firm to liability for mistakes these folks make. Cognitive decline should not be taken lightly.

The speakers at the conference offered attendees very little concrete advice on how to address the problem of an impaired advisor. What could one expect of them? They have no training nor skill set in identifying diminished capacity themselves. Without expertise, their discussions lack action plans.

As aging experts ourselves (RN, Elder law attorney and geriatric psychologist) and a resource to the industry, we question the suggestion that one should wait for “performance issues” to surface before any firm does anything about an impaired professional in its midst. If there is a “performance issue” visible to management, it is likely that it existed for some time and harm to clients already could have occurred. The notion is reactive, not proactive. Isn’t that contrary to the essential philosophy of financial planning itself to look ahead, strategize and don’t wait for a crisis??

Waiting for a manager to call a special team assigned to address the problem is not the best approach, as we see it.  For one thing, most firms don’t have a special team that would serve the purpose of knowing what to do with an impaired advisor. Yes, every firm would be well protected if such a team were formed and that is something we always recommend. However, failing to screen advisors with any in-house tools when impairment is suspected is to ignore the lurking possibility of harm to clients.  What do we mean by an in-house tool? Start with a checklist.

On our website is a free downloadable Financial Advisor's Checklist: 10 Red Flags of Diminished Capacity to help you spot the warning signs in clients. There is no reason any firm could not use relevant parts of the same tool to spot signs of diminished capacity in its own employees. It is not across-the-board applicable to the professional as compared with a client showing red flags but some points do apply to anyone. For example, memory loss, failure to appreciate the consequences of decisions, confusion, loss of ability to process basic concepts are all on the checklist and are universal warning signs.

What Can You Do With An Advisor You Think Is Impaired?

Proactive steps are essential.  Here are our recommendations:

  1. First, record your observations of changes in the advisor’s behavior. For example, forgetting appointments, failure to meet on schedule with clients, seeing too many blank stares in your interactions with him or her, becoming withdrawn from interactions can all be signs of trouble a manager must address. They could be associated with cognitive impairment or with other health conditions. Managers need to ask the advisor about what they and other colleagues see that looks like a possible red flag.
  2. Ask about general health issues, which can directly impact how an advisor does the job of handling clients. Is it nosy? Yes. Is client financial safety at stake if you don’t ask? Yes. Take the risk of opening the conversation. That is smart. Waiting for a disaster is not.
  3. Establish an in-house policy for what should be recorded by colleagues and reported to managers about possible signs of cognitive decline and the direction you want to take after signs are identified. The policy should be in writing and distributed.
  4. Have a plan to closely watch the apparently impaired advisor.

Asking the advisor to work with someone to supervise transactions is one option. Reviewing how the advisor is managing his or her work at short intervals is another option. And with obviously impaired folks who do not themselves recognize their own cognitive changes (not an uncommon thing), have a suspension or graceful exit means to stop the impaired person from putting clients at risk.  This falls under what those conference speakers vaguely referred to as “other arrangements”. Be specific.

This is uncomfortable territory for managers, compliance officers and for colleagues of older advisors in firms. However, the FINRA poll is telling. If this problem were not rising in our midst, 65% of those polled would not be worried. If you are concerned where you work, get your copy of Succeed With Senior Clients: A Financial Advisor’s Guide to Best Practices, now or get a live or online presentation from us at AgingInvestor.com. Don’t put your firm and your clients at unnecessary risk.

By Carolyn Rosenblatt, RN, Elder law attorney, Consultant, AgingInvestor.com

The Hole in The Senior Safe Act: Why Briefly Holding Transactions Is Not Enough To Stop Abuse

The Hole in The Senior Safe Act: Why Briefly Holding Transactions Is Not Enough To Stop Abuse

 The Senior Safe Act allows you to hold transactions when you suspect financial abuse of a client. The Act is designed, at least in theory, to allow time for the trusted contacts you have on file to take appropriate action. Many of those victimized by predators or manipulated by unscrupulous family have dementia and have lost their judgment about what makes sense financially. The Act urges you to get trusted contacts and provides that you are not breaking privacy rules to contact them in the reasonable belief that your client is being financially abused. The length of time you can hold a requested transaction can be as long as a month. This is where the Senior Safe Act has missed the mark.

 Let’s look at the reality of impaired elders who are in charge of their wealth on the family trust. The trust is in order, and if the elder recognizes that he or she is experiencing decline in mental ability, that trustee may choose to resign. Simple. But that is not what happens in too many cases. For many persons who have cognitive decline and dementia, the elder does not recognize that he is impaired at all. “I feel fine!” he tells his worried family. When asked to resign as trustee, having total control over (theoretically) millions of dollars in a trust, the elder flatly and stubbornly refuses. Meanwhile, financial abuse by predatory people can continue unabated.

 When an older person experiences cognitive decline, it typically has a very slow onset. Short-term memory loss does not raise enough red flags for those closest to the elder to take any action. “She’s just getting old” they say dismissively. But memory loss is often the first and earliest warning sign of Alzheimer’s disease, the most common form of dementia. The odds of having Alzheimer’s disease by age 85 are at least one in three.  Think about your own older clients. Some live well beyond age 85. The risk of dementia rises with age. Short-term memory loss interfering with daily life is not a normal part of aging.  Financial abuse and cognitive impairment often go together.

 When financial abuse reaches a visible level, the advisor may do what the law allows and call the trusted contact person, usually an adult child.  The advisor hopes that the call will somehow trigger something and the abuse will be stopped. But here is a reality check: The family can’t accomplish anything needed in two weeks or even a month if you hold transactions then. Here is a real case example of just such a situation, showing how long it really did take.

 In our work with a family at AgingParents.com we saw rampant financial abuse of an elder by a family member. The elder had dementia but had not been formally diagnosed by his doctor. Over 70% of his income was going to the predator. He was asked to resign as trustee by his two adult children, who were reasonably worried that he was going to give away all his cash and further encumber his home. The dad, whom we’ll call Gene, had been developing dementia for at least two years. He felt obligated to the predator and was totally powerless in resisting her demands for money. He just kept writing checks, draining his own resources. It was clearly a case of financial manipulation.

 We were involved in working to persuade Gene to allow what his family trust provided: to have his daughter, Jennie, become the successor trustee.  He agreed, then reneged. He accepted the logic and then refused to accept it. The kids had no choice but to use the law to take over control. Their father was too stubborn to resign as trustee when asked, even with the entire family presenting a united front, asking and respectfully begging.

 The trust, like many such documents provided that Gene could be removed as trustee by his appointed successor, his daughter, after two physicians had declared him to be incapacitated for handling his own finances. A court decision was not required. However, getting him to two doctors willing to assess him and put their observations in writing was a challenge that took months to accomplish. The total time spent getting the change of trustees accomplished according to the terms of Gene’s trust was eight months.

 His children were the trusted contacts in the advisor’s file. They knew about the abuse and were in agreement with the advisor that Gene had to stop being the trustee. The adult children had to hire consultants (AgingParents.com), have meetings, hire an attorney, and try various methods to get the job done.  Their time energy and thousands of dollars were expended to prevent an even worse outcome, which was being left to support their aging father if he were to totally deplete his own funds.

The takeaways:

  1. Though well intended, we do not expect that the Senior Safe Act will do much to stop financial abuse because of the short time allowed for a financial professional to hold transactions. In Gene’s case, the predator would have been happy to wait a mere two weeks or a month before resuming the financial manipulation of Gene.
  2. Know that any older impaired client may not understand that he or she is cognitively impaired and will ignore pleas to resign as trustee with total control over any family trust.
  3. If you see that an older client is showing signs of cognitive decline, do not wait until it gets worse. Reach out at the time of your first suspicions of trouble.  The family or other trusted persons may well have a better opportunity to persuade an elder to transfer power over finances to the appointed successor before complete loss of capacity. Expect this to take time.

In the case described above as a result of ongoing financial abuse, nearly all of Gene’s cash was depleted during the eight months of effort on the part of his adult children to have him removed.  The advisor did the right thing but too much of Gene’s cash was depleted in the period when the abuser could keep manipulating him for those months of effort by family to have him removed as trustee.

By Carolyn L. Rosenblatt, RN, Elder law attorney, AgingInvestor.com 

If you are seeing abuse and feel lost about how to stop it, contact us at AgingInvestor.com for a confidential consultation with our nurse-lawyer, geriatric psychologist team so you can do everything possible to protect your vulnerable client.

The Truth About Getting A Trusted Contact Person for Your Clients

The Truth About Getting A Trusted Contact Person for Your Clients

It seems that regulators are fond of creating new mandates for you without telling you how to implement them and what risks might be involved. The new FINRA rule that says you must "try" to get a trusted contact person (TCP) for new clients is illustrative.

First of all there is no firm requirement that you actually get a TCP for anyone. All you have to do is make an attempt. If the client says "no", you're out of luck in trying to solve any problem that may exist without anyone to call in the event of an issue you see. Such issues might include someone ripping off your client or your client really losing his marbles. The intent of the rule was good. The idea was to increase protections for vulnerable elders. It's just that the way clients act and the issues you are sure to see with one TCP have been ignored in regulators' creation of this mandate.

Research has given us important information about protecting elders from financial abuse. We know that family members are the most frequent abusers of elders. Guess who most elders would think of as a TCP? The family member, of course. The idea of a single TCP is flawed from the outset. If the idea is to keep your client financially safer, you don't want to be limited to the potential abuser as the TCP. That defeats the purpose.

Here at AgingInvestor.com we are on a mission to keep elders safer. We make every effort to fill in the blank places your regulators leave when they come up with a mandate like getting a TCP for your clients. Here are our recommendations on this subject and why we say what we say about TCPs.

First, we believe every advisor should not only "try" to get a TCP for every client--we think you should insist on it as a matter of your intelligent, proactive senior office policy. Every client, new and existing should be approached with a courteous, respectful explanation and request to name a TCP you can contact in case of need. You let clients know that you have a policy to protect them from potential predators who are out there trolling for your clients, particularly the seniors. You could write this explanation and request up and send it around or bring it up at every portfolio review.

Next, we recommend that you get not just one TCP for every client, but three. The reason for this is that since family members are often the abusers of vulnerable people, you need someone else to call if "sonny boy" is ripping off dad's account and dad is too impaired to realize it. "Sonny boy" just might be the one TCP his dad, your client named and you would then be stuck with no way to protect your client in that situation.  Someone outside the family would be ideal. This could be the estate attorney, a competent friend, or a clergy person your client trusts. Any of them would need to be able to intervene when learning of suspected financial abuse of your client. A third TCP could be another family member your client also sees as trustworthy.  With information going from the advisor to three people at once, the risk of abuse is lessened and the chances of effective action in the event of abuse are increased.

Finally, we recommend that you consider all the risks involved in a decision to reach out to the TCP when you see red flags of diminished capacity in your client, or when you see warning signs of financial abuse of your client.  You do need a written internal office policy that directs you as to the observations, documentation and steps to take when an issue comes to your attention. Legally, you are probably on firm ground, carrying out the intent of the FINRA regulation. However, you don't want to set your client up for harm.

For instance, if the client is in the middle of a contentious divorce and the ex- spouse is the TCP, do you want to release information about your client's finances that could harm your client in the divorce proceeding? Give yourself time to discuss the options with other, knowledgeable people in your office, or group. The value of having a proactive office policy for aging clients in this situation is that you have others to ask and weigh in with their points of view.

If you are not sure about the red flags of diminished capacity and what you should look for, get your free downloadable checklist here. Likewise if you are not clear about classic warning signs of financial abuse get your free checklist for those here too.

Need help with that smart, proactive senior office policy? Ask for a consultation at AgingInvestor.com and get the guidance you need from our nurse-lawyer, geriatric psychologist team

 

Carolyn Rosenblatt, RN, Elder law attorney, AgingInvestor.com

<p><code> </code></p><div class="signature"><table style="border: 2px solid #999; border-style: solid; background-color: #f5fff5;"><tbody><tr><td style="width: 110px; vertical-align: text-top; align-content: center;"><div style="border: 1px solid #eee;"><img class="alignleft" src="http://www.aginginvestor.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/DavisRosenblattPublicityPhoto.jpg" alt="" width="123" height="116"></div></td><td><h4>Dr. Mikol Davis and Carolyn Rosenblatt, co-founders of AgingInvestor.com</h4><p>Carolyn Rosenblatt, RN, Elder Law Attorney offers a wealth of experience with aging to help you create tools so you can skillfully manage your aging clients. You will understand your rights and theirs so you can stay safe and keep them safe too.</p><p>Dr. Mikol Davis, Psychologist, Gerontologist offers depth of knowledge about diminished financial capacity in older adults to help you strategize best practices so you can protect your vulnerable aging clients.</p><p><a href="http://www.aginginvestor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">AgingInvestors.com</a> offers accredited cutting edge on-line continuing education courses for financial professionals wanting to expand their expertise in best practices for their aging clients. To learn more about our courses click <a href="https://agingparents.leadpages.co/ceu-choices/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HERE</a></p></td></tr></tbody></table></div>

Myth Versus Reality: New Rule 2165 and Temporary Holds on Disbursements

Myth Versus Reality: New Rule 2165 and Temporary Holds on Disbursements

The regulators are trying. They want to help advisors protect aging clients from financial abuse. They don't want you to fear doing something wrong if you refrain from handing over assets to what looks like an abuser. But not living in the real world of how to stop abuse by determined abusers has its disadvantages. The new rule tells you who is at risk (elders and other impaired adults). It tells you that you just need a reasonable suspicion of abuse, not unquestioned evidence. It tells you what a temporary hold is and how long it can be: 15 days, 25 at max. Sounds ok. Until you actually know how long it takes for the legal steps to halt abuse.

Here at AgingInvestor.com we see this problem in the world of families and those who want to rip them off, not from inside an institutional setting or financial services firm. The world from here looks different from what FINRA imagines. There is usually no way anyone can stop abuse in 15 days or even in 25. We explain. In a real case, the kind this rule is designed to affect, we worked with family in an unfortunately typical situation of an unscrupulous son trying to squeeze money out of his 90 year old father who had dementia. The advisor had seen the pattern. He knew the son never did well on his own and he had been given handouts from dad for years. Dad, whom we'll call Joe, lived in a nursing home. He needed help with everything and his memory was shot. He was easily confused. Yet his advisor never questioned his ability to effect financial transactions. But when the son, we'll call Jake, brought his frail father into the advisor's office demanding $50,000 plus access to the cash management account, the advisor was sure it was abuse. He knew his client was too confused to disagree with Jake. The advisor dragged his feet and didn't provide the check his client had asked for, pushed by Jake, Over a month later, he felt obligated to give his client the $50K, which of course Jake got right away from Joe. The advisor didn't have Rule 2165 but he knew that Joe's daughter Rhoda was the appointed person as power of attorney and successor trustee. He didn't have permission to contact her, so he did it, as he said "on the QT". Rhoda was upset. She called us for advice. She found us through her own advisor who had the sense to send her to a resource who could answer her questions and guide her.

First we looked at the trust and what it said about Joe being removed as trustee or resigning as such. Two doctor's letters were needed, verifying that he was no longer competent to manage finances if he was to be removed as trustee. We advised her to get those letters asap. Rhoda lived out of state from Joe. She found the doctors and flew into town to take him to the appointments. Fortunately the doctors were able to say that Joe had indeed lost his capacity for handling his money. A couple of weeks after the appointments, Rhoda got the letters she needed. She then had to take them to Joe's estate planning attorney, who met with her and eventually gave her a Certificate of Trust, showing that she was now the successor to Joe and was in charge of his money. She then had to get the Certificate to his advisor's firm, which had to review it and after two weeks, they accepted it. Only then was Rhoda able to stop any further disbursements from Joe's account without her permission. Her brother was furious. His gravy train had stopped. The advisor had sent a debit card for the cash management account Joe requested under pressure to Rhoda, not to Joe. Rhoda destroyed it. Abuse stopped in its tracks.

Reality check: this scenario of stopping abuse involved a lawyer, an elder willing to go to two doctors, the cooperation of two doctors, travel between states, the approval of the Certificate of Trust with Rhoda's name on it through a process by the advisor's firm and a lot of time spent by Rhoda. The entire matter of protecting Joe from abuse took three months. Rule 2165 supposedly authorizes advisors to "take immediate action" when abuse is reasonably suspected. What is myth rather than reality is how long it takes to actually protect the elder and stop a predator. This was a case of undue influence by Jake who had a history of manipulating his father. And the new rule would not have helped at all. Jake would have happily waited for a mere 15 days to get his hands on the cash. Rhoda couldn't possibly get Joe removed as his own trustee without the doctors' letters. This sort of prerequisite of needing doctors to verify incapacity is commonly required in typical trusts. Perhaps the drafters of Rule 2165 never had to go through the process described here in their own lives. If they had, the new rule would provide for a 90 day authorization to hold transactions, rather than a maximum of 25 days. Maybe going forward when the myth gives way to reality, the rule will be revised. For now it is inadequate.

 

Dr. Mikol Davis and Carolyn Rosenblatt, co-founders of AgingInvestor.com

Carolyn Rosenblatt, RN, Elder Law Attorney offers a wealth of experience with aging to help you create tools so you can skillfully manage your aging clients. You will understand your rights and theirs so you can stay safe and keep them safe too.

Dr. Mikol Davis, Psychologist, Gerontologist offers in depth of knowledge about diminished financial capacity in older adults to help you strategize best practices so you can protect your vulnerable aging clients.

They are the authors of "Succeed With Senior Clients: A Financial Advisors Guide To Best Practice," and "Hidden Truths About Retirement And Long Term Care," available at AgingInvestor.com offers accredited cutting edge on-line continuing education courses for financial professionals wanting to expand their expertise in best practices for their aging clients. To learn more about our courses click HERE