SKYFORT

Educational case framework

Anonymized client case studies

Real scenarios from my practice (fully anonymized, generalized, no specific securities) — to show what decisions get made and why.

Updated:

Andrii Andriushchenko
Andrii Andriushchenko
Licensed Dealing RepresentativeAxcess Capital Advisors Inc.NRD #4575551 — verify

I'm a Licensed Dealing Representative (NRD #4575551, Axcess Capital Advisors Inc.). Everything below is educational decision frameworks, not recommendations, not promises of results. I don't publish client names, account screenshots, or specific securities — that violates regulatory rules and basic ethics. Instead each case describes the client type (profession + situation), the three questions we asked, the framework we applied, and how year one ended. If your situation is similar — that doesn't mean the same solution fits you. It means it's worth discussing your specifics.

Regulatory rationale: why case studies in Canada are constrained

This isn't just my caution — it's a direct requirement of National Instrument 31-103 (Registrant Conduct), which governs all Dealing Representatives in Canada. Understand these rules and you understand why no legal EMD publishes "client cases with 14% returns" on their blog, and why when you see such claims from a "finfluencer" — it's almost always a sign of an unregistered operation.

NI 31-103, Part 13 — Dealing with Clients

Marketing communications rules for registered firms. Prohibited: performance claims about specific securities in public marketing, promises of future returns, testimonials confirming specific investment performance. Permitted: educational frameworks, generic market data with sources, anonymous categorical examples.

NI 31-103, §13.5 — Marketing Practices

All marketing materials must be fair, balanced, not misleading. If I show "client A earned 14%" I must also show clients who lost money (CSA reviewer test). In practice this makes anonymized case studies with specific returns nearly impossible — frameworks are simpler.

NI 45-106, §1.1 — Eligible Investor & Accredited Investor

Investor categories that may purchase exempt market securities. Eligible: $75K solo income / $125K household, or $400K net assets. Accredited: $200K solo income / $300K household, $1M+ financial assets, or $5M+ total net assets. Case studies may reference this framework but not provide individual recommendations.

PIPEDA — Personal Information Protection

Federal privacy law requiring protection of client personal information. Minimum sufficient anonymization: a person should not be "reasonably" identifiable through combinations of factors (city + employer + income + age).

Joint CSA/CIRO Staff Notice 31-369 (Dec 2025)

Newest social-media + finfluencer compliance guidance. Confirms: educational fact patterns are permitted; specific security recommendations + return claims + performance comparisons — require registration + suitability process.

What case studies can and cannot contain

✓ PermittedClient category ("tech worker, AB resident, $130-160K income")
✗ ProhibitedName, photo, precise city, employer name
✓ PermittedDecision framework ("RRSP-first in vesting year to knock marginal")
✗ ProhibitedSpecific strategy to buy specific security X
✓ PermittedGeneric returns reference ("historical broad-market ETF 7-12%")
✗ ProhibitedPerformance claim about specific security ("MIC Y returned 14% in 2024")
✓ PermittedNI 45-106 self-check framework ("$75K → Eligible Investor")
✗ ProhibitedPersonal recommendation ("exempt market portfolio would suit you")

How I anonymize cases

No names, no cities, no employers

Never a name, never an employer-by-name, never a precise city. Instead of "Alex from Calgary works at Shopify" — "tech worker in Alberta, US-based employer".

Ranges instead of exact numbers

Salary shown as a range ($120-140K, not $128,500). Investment sizes as round numbers.

No return percentages for specific securities

I cannot and will not write "client earned 14% on MIC X" — violates NI 31-103 marketing rules for EMDs. Instead: "client diversified 20% of net worth across exempt market via 3 separate securities".

Written client consent

Every case is published only after written client confirmation that anonymization is sufficient.

Case types coming

Tech

Tech worker with US employer + RSU vesting

Senior engineer, $150-200K base + $80-120K RSU vesting. Framework: RRSP-first in vesting year + auto-sell vested 80% + diversify via broad-market ETF.

Read full case →

Medical

Resident physician facing MPC decision

Family physician, first 2 years of practice, $280-340K gross. Framework: incorporate in year 2-3 + salary to CPP-max + dividends for residual + IPP later.

Read full case →

Founder

Business owner with $1M+ revenue CCPC

Service business owner, 5+ years of operations, ready for potential exit. Framework: pre-exit QSBS purification + holdco-on-top + family trust.

Read full case →

Newcomer

Family relocation — Calgary, 18 mo after arrival

Couple aged 35-40, two children, household income $180-220K. Framework: emergency fund → RESP first (CESG 20%) → TFSA → FHSA → mortgage in 24-30 mo.

Newcomer pillars on the blog →

Eligible Investor

Eligible Investor ready for exempt market entry

$200K+ household income 2 years running. Framework: 15-25% of net worth → 3+ separate exempt market securities → liquid public market core stays 60%+.

60-second self-check →

Publication status

I'm preparing the first 3 detailed cases (tech worker, physician, business owner). Each will pass legal anonymization review before publishing. Want notification when they go live? Subscribe to email or book a discovery call.

FAQ

Why don't you show real client returns?
Because it violates NI 31-103 (Registrant Conduct) rules for Dealing Representatives. EMDs cannot make "performance claims" about specific securities in marketing materials. Plus past performance doesn't predict future. Frameworks instead of returns.
Can I see testimonials from real clients?
Real Schema.org-marked testimonials aren't on /en/pro-mene yet — I'm collecting written client consents and will add Review markup once I have ≥3 complete attestations. CSA distinguishes 'testimonial about advisor' (allowed with conditions: real client, written consent, no performance claims) from 'testimonial about specific security performance' (prohibited by NI 31-103 §13.5).
I match one of these cases — does the same solution fit me?
No. Frameworks illustrate approaches, but each situation has dozens of nuances. Discovery call = 30 minutes to understand your specifics. No fee.
Will there be cases where things went wrong?
Yes — some cases will cover mistakes and their fixes. Educational value of mistakes is often higher than success stories.
How can I suggest a case type that would be useful?
/en/contact has a 'suggest a topic' form.

Suggest a topic for the next article

What would you like me to break down? I read every message and often write posts based on requests.

0/500

Email and IP are stored only for contact. No spam.

While the cases are being prepared — let's discuss yours?

Every real story starts with a discovery call. 30 minutes, no commitment, no fee.

Free discovery call →