The Claimant, a 71-year-old retired engineer, invested RM650,000 in a six-month autocallable investment in October 2020, introduced by his relationship manager. He believed it was a safe, low-risk product promising 8% returns, but alleged the bank failed to explain that it was not principal-protected.

When the investment matured in April 2021, he lost over RM159,000 and later claimed further losses after being encouraged to buy more of the underlying stock. He sought compensation up to RM250,000.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (FI)’s POSITION

The FI argued it had complied with all requirements. The Claimant’s risk profile was assessed as “Medium to High” (C4).

Documents such as the Product Highlight Sheet and Risk Disclosure Statement clearly stated the product was not principal-protected, and a mandatory recorded callback confirmed his acknowledgement. The bank also denied advising him to buy individual shares, as this was outside its permitted scope.

KEY ADJUDICATION FINDING

The Claimant, though a retiree, was educated and financially experienced, making it reasonable to expect he understood or to ask questions. Signed documents and recorded calls confirmed that the principal was not protected. The Claimant’s failure to ask for clarification on this key term.

The Claimant had several options to cancel the investment without penalty, but he chose not to. Losses from subsequent share purchases were separate and not attributable to the bank.

ADJUDICATION AWARD

The Adjudicator found that the Claimant did not make a case for the return of his investment losses. The loss “must lie where it falls,” as he knowingly proceeded despite the risks. The claim was dismissed, with no liability found against the FI.