hw0799

You need to understand the intent of the order given by the judge. Please don’t get me wrong but it almost sounds like that there’s a legal requirement that the client (not your friend, not the bank he’s working for) must discuss the investment with a financial professional (or planner) so that the client is NOT disadvantaged by the investment (if you want the CFAI terminology it’s standard III C Suitability of investments). Essentially the court (or the judge) is exercising a fiduciary role which does indeed extend to the financial professional or planner whatever you want to call the person.
I’m not sure about the case here, but some trust funds require that the beneficiary file an application before funds can be cleared to be withdrawn. A judge may get involved when there’s a dispute or even as a standard procedure in some states.
Now it appears that for some reason the client is not consulting an independent financial planner; perhaps the client’s not savvy enough or the bank or your friend has persuaded the client to use the “knowledgeable financial planner” that they can recommend a.k.a YOU. If that’s the case, your friend or the bank he works for MAY BE ”working around” the legal requirement by hiring you on behalf of the client to validate the price of the annuity which may NOT be the only “intent” of the judge’s order.
Further if the bank has any vested interest in the annuity business, you must definitely disclose that you are being paid by the bank for validating the price of the annuity to the client (my recommendation is you should disclose it anyway).
There’s still the issue of the suitability of the investment which has not been judged in the context of the client’s total portfolio and objectives and constraints. Presumably you do not have access to such information - you may not even be speaking to the client directly.
Who is supposed to judge the suitability of the investment? Most likely the client’s financial planner. But the client doesn’t have one (this seemed like a logical assumption - correct me if I’m wrong). This means the bank is using your name to “work around” the legal requirement, they are using your name as a proxy for the “financial planner” of the client who’s intended to advise not just on the present value of the annuity but on the suitablility of the investement. Seems like a very slippery slope to me.
Sorry I don’t mean to be negative - for all I know the product’s great, it all works out well and the client is happy but what if it DOESN’T?
Remember that your name is on the line and the client’s money is on the line.