RegulationDec 1 2017

Wealth manager must pay damages over risk profile failings

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
Wealth manager must pay damages over risk profile failings

A wealth manager has been told to pay damages to a client after it was found to have deviated from the risk profile and failed to sell poorly performing assets.

David Rocker took Full Circle Asset Management to court after his £1.5m investment fell by more than 50 per cent, alleging the losses were caused by the firm's breaches of the contractual terms over how it managed his money.

Mr Rocker's particular claims included the fact that Full Circle Asset Management failed to operate a promised "stop loss" policy that would have limited his losses and that his money was invested above the agreed risk limits.

Mr Justice Morris found in favour of Mr Rocker on both claims but said the amount of money owed to him would need to be recalculated.

Mr Rocker was invested in the medium risk Inner Circle portfolio, reserved for the firm's clients with greater levels of funds, which had a permitted range of risk scores between 3.5 and 6.5 but Full Circle Asset Management said this range had a tolerance of plus or minus 0.5.

This would have allowed the company to exceed the agreed level of risk for "short periods" but the judge said aspects of this evidence were "contradictory" since Full Circle Asset Management seemed to suggest there was a 0.5 tolerance plus the ability to flex above that tolerance for less than a sustained period.

Mr Justice Morris said some of the evidence on this issue was "so confused as to be unreliable".

He said: "First, in my judgment, there is no justification for allowing both a 0.5 tolerance so as to increase the range and flexing above that increased range.

"Nor am I satisfied that a tolerance of 0.5 should be allowed.

"As accepted in cross-examination, if allowed in all circumstances it would have the effect of increasing the band to a de facto three to seven across the board. In that event, the tolerance is no longer a measure to allow for short term fluctuations.

"Finally, whilst the gap in the later score ranges for 'medium' and 'aggressive,' might be seen as some support for a tolerance, that point is not strong on the facts here.

"Mr Rocker's subsequent customer risk profile was 57, and not in the crossover area of 60 to 65, where there might be an argument for such a tolerance."

Full Circle Asset Management had also submitted that there was no breach of mandate if it happened with the express knowledge and consent of Mr Rocker.

The wealth manager argued this was the case in certain periods but Mr Justice Morris did not agree.

He said: "As regards an email of 14 December 2011, whilst [John] Robson [Full Circle Asset Management's chief investment officer] stated that he planned to raise the level of risk, nothing is said about the levels to, and from, which risk was to be raised and there was no mention of breaching the medium risk band.

"Later letters are to the same effect. Even if, from time to time, Mr Rocker knew that in general terms risk would be raised, he did not know what the overall risk score for his Inner Circle portfolio was and whether any particular investment would take the risk outside that for a medium portfolio."

On the issue of the "stop loss" policy, Full Circle Asset Management denied it was under any binding legal obligation to sell an investment in order to prevent losses from accruing.

The dispute centred around the meaning of the term "stop loss", with Full Circle Asset Management claiming that it is a tool used to monitor portfolio holdings where alerts are triggered when the price of the individual holding or index falls below, or rises above, a certain level but the investment manager is under no obligation to sell.

Mr Rocker claimed the "stop loss" referred to an automatic sale of an investment once its value hit a specified level.

After consulting a number of dictionaries and experts, Mr Justice Morris concluded Mr Rocker had been correct.

He said: "I conclude that, in general, the term 'stop loss' when used in connection with financial investment practice indicates a procedure which leads to an automatic or semi-automatic sale of the investment in question.

"This construction is suggested by the words themselves; it is supported by dictionary definitions and explanations placed before the court and is consistent with the limited case law.

"More significantly, the balance of the expert evidence as to meaning, part of the relevant admissible background, which I prefer and accept, is to the same effect.

"Full Circle Asset Management's case here is predicated on its own case as to the meaning of 'stop losses' and it is inherent in that case, that Full Circle Asset Management did not operate a policy of automatic sale upon the trigger point being hit.

"Having found that 'stop loss' did connote automatic sale at a level of 5 per cent, it follows that Full Circle Asset Management was necessarily in breach of the stop loss term in any case where an investment whose value fell below the relevant stop loss trigger point was not sold at that point, but retained."

Mr Rocker, a retired solicitor, became a client of FCAM in 2005 and before investing with the company had a number of years' experience investing in the stock market through a broker.

He had initially been invested in a portfolio which had the objective of medium term capital growth and had indicated he was a medium risk investor and between 2005 and 2009 this delivered an average annual growth of 9.7 per cent.

In 2009 he was invited to invest in the Inner Circle portfolio, which he invested £1.5m in.

damian.fantato@ft.com