IFSE Institute LLQP - Life License Qualification Program (LLQP)

According to the LLQP Group Savings and Pension Plans curriculum, a Defined Benefit Pension Plan (DBPP) represents a significant long-term obligation for an employer. In a DBPP, the employer guarantees a specific retirement benefit to employees, typically based on years of service and earnings. As a result, the employer bears the investment risk and funding responsibility. Because of this obligation, pension legislation places strict limits on when and how such a plan may be terminated.

The most clear-cut circumstance under which a defined benefit pension plan may be terminated is when the employer becomes insolvent or goes bankrupt. In this situation, the employer is no longer financially capable of maintaining the plan. Pension standards legislation recognizes that continuing the plan is no longer feasible, and the plan may be wound up. This is why Option C is correct. Even in bankruptcy, however, employee pension rights are protected to the extent possible, and pension assets must be distributed according to legislated priorities.

Options A and B are incorrect because business growth—whether faster company growth or a rapid increase in plan membership—does not justify terminating a DBPP. In fact, growth often strengthens a company’s ability to support pension obligations rather than undermining it. Pension plans are designed to accommodate changes in workforce size and business expansion.

Option D is also incorrect. When a company is sold to another employer with an identical or comparable pension plan, pension legislation generally allows the plan to be continued or transferred, rather than terminated. The intent of pension regulation is to preserve employees’ accrued benefits, not eliminate them due to corporate restructuring.

The LLQP curriculum emphasizes that DBPPs are highly regulated precisely because employees rely on them for retirement security. Termination is therefore permitted only in exceptional circumstances, with employer insolvency being the most definitive example.

Accordingly, the most accurate and LLQP-compliant answer is Option C.

Kadiha’s investment in a segregated fund with a 75% maturity guarantee means that upon maturity, she is guaranteed to receive 75% of her original investment, which would be $7,500 (75% of $10,000). The payment is considered part of the maturity guarantee under segregated fund contracts, and the difference paid out by the insurer to meet the guarantee ($2,500 in this case) is not subject to capital gains or interest income tax as it’s part of the guaranteed benefit. According to LLQP guidelines, segregated funds with such guarantees only tax the difference as capital gains if the payout exceeds the original investment, which is not applicable here​​.

Beneficiary changes in insurance contracts generally become effective once the insurer receives and processes the signed change form. This is supported by LLQP material, which specifies that changes to beneficiary designations must be documented and received by the insurer for the new designation to take effect. Since Linda is a revocable beneficiary, Luisa can make this change without requiring Linda's consent​​.

Option B is incorrect as revocable beneficiaries do not require consent for changes. Option C is too general, and D is incorrect because a formal written change form is typically required.

According to the LLQP Segregated Funds and Annuities curriculum, selecting an appropriate annuity requires matching the source of funds, risk tolerance, and income objectives. In Irwin’s case, several key facts clearly guide the recommendation.

First, Irwin’s funds are held in a LIRA, which is a registered, locked-in retirement account. Under LLQP and pension legislation principles, funds from a LIRA must be used to purchase a registered annuity (or transferred to another registered retirement income vehicle). This immediately eliminates any non-registered annuity option, making Option B incorrect.

Second, Irwin wants stable, low-risk income, which is a core feature of traditional life annuities. Although variable annuities can offer income that fluctuates based on investment performance, they do not provide predictable increases and expose the annuitant to market risk. Since Irwin specifically appreciates the reduced risk of an annuity, a variable income annuity is not suitable. This rules out Option A.

Irwin’s most important objective is that his annuity payments increase gradually over time to help offset rising private health insurance costs. The LLQP study guide explains that an indexed income annuity is designed precisely for this purpose. Indexed annuities provide income that increases each year by a fixed percentage or in line with an inflation index. While initial payments are lower than a level annuity, the increasing payments help preserve purchasing power over time, which is especially important for retirees facing rising expenses such as health care.

A registered level income annuity (Option D) would provide constant payments that do not increase, leaving Irwin vulnerable to rising costs in later years.

Therefore, considering that the funds are registered, Irwin values income security, and he specifically wants payments that grow over time, the LLQP-approved solution is a registered indexed income annuity.

Accordingly, the correct and fully verified answer is Option C.

According to the LLQP Segregated Funds and Annuities and Investment & Savings curriculum, one of the key personal risks that must be considered when assessing an investor profile is the risk of job loss. When a client faces a real possibility of unemployment, the primary financial concern is access to funds to cover living expenses during a period of reduced or lost income.

In this scenario, Albert’s most immediate need is liquidity. Liquidity refers to how quickly and easily an investment can be converted into cash without significant loss of value. The LLQP study guide emphasizes that highly liquid investments are especially important for short-term needs, emergency funds, and situations where income may be interrupted. Examples include savings accounts, money market funds, or cashable low-risk instruments that preserve capital.

Option A correctly addresses this need by identifying an investment that can be cashed out quickly without a decrease in value. Such investments allow Albert to maintain financial flexibility if he loses his job, ensuring that he can meet essential expenses like mortgage payments, utilities, and groceries without being forced to sell long-term or volatile investments at an inopportune time.

The other options are not appropriate given Albert’s situation. Annuities provide long-term, often irreversible income streams and are not suitable for clients who may need immediate access to capital. Creditor protection is relevant for individuals at risk of lawsuits or business failure, not income interruption from job loss. Broad diversification helps manage market risk but does not solve the problem of short-term cash needs during unemployment.

The LLQP curriculum clearly states that investments should be aligned with both financial objectives and personal risk factors, including employment stability. When employment risk is high, liquidity becomes the dominant consideration.

Therefore, based on LLQP-approved investor profiling principles, the correct answer is Option A, an investment that can be accessed quickly without a loss in value.

Philippe will have access to his LIRA, the GIC he invested in, and any RRSPs or similar savings. CPP/QPP and OAS are not typically available until later (after 60 or 65), and GIS is for low-income individuals, which Philippe is not.

Exact Extract:

"A LIRA can be converted to a Life Income Fund (LIF) starting at age 55, allowing withdrawals. RRSPs can also be accessed by converting to RRIFs. GICs are fully redeemable based on terms. Eligibility for GIS and OAS typically starts at 65 years."

(Reference: LifeInsur-E311-2022-10-9ED, Chapter 1 Retirement Income Options​)

Assuris protects policyholders against the risk of an insurance company failure. Segregated fund contracts are covered by Assuris guarantees, which ensure continuity of benefits up to certain limits.

Exact Extract:

"Assuris is the not-for-profit organization that protects Canadian policyholders if their life insurance company fails. Benefits related to segregated funds are covered up to certain limits."

(Reference: Segfunds-E313-2020-12-7ED, Chapter 2.1.11 Investor Protection​)

Since the agent had only completed one prior transaction for Helmut, Helmut was still considered a new client for identity verification purposes, and identification was mandatory. Failure to verify identity violates PCMLTFA regulations.

Exact Extract:

"Where there is no ongoing business relationship or where previous transactions were limited, the representative must identify the client again. Failure to do so for investments over $10,000 breaches PCMLTFA requirements."

(Reference: Segfunds-E313-2020-12-7ED, Chapter 4.3 Compliance Requirements​)

A redeemable GIC offers capital protection and easy liquidity (ability to cash out without penalties), making it the best fit for Anthony’s priorities.

Exact Extract:

"Redeemable GICs allow investors to cash in before maturity without significant penalties, while preserving the invested capital."

(Reference: Segfunds-E313-2020-12-7ED, Chapter 1.3.6 Guaranteed Investment Certificates (GICs)​)

It is a regulatory requirement for the client, Kimeni, to acknowledge receipt of the Fund Facts document when purchasing segregated funds. This ensures that he has been informed about the key aspects of the investment, such as fees, risks, and performance, prior to purchase. LLQP guidelines mandate that documentation like Fund Facts must be provided to clients and that they acknowledge receipt to confirm informed consent​.

Option A is incorrect as the document must be delivered before the purchase. Option C is inaccurate as the document can be delivered in various formats, not exclusively electronic. Option D is incorrect because it is the agent’s responsibility to provide the document, not the client’s to request it.