Category Archives: RIA

Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #92

SEC Proposed Reg BI and Recommendations of Rollovers (Part 1)

This is my 92nd article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s (DOL) fiduciary rule and exemptions and the SEC’s “best interest” proposals.

On April 18, 2018, the SEC released three proposals for comment—Regulation Best Interest (“Reg BI”) for broker-dealers, an Interpretation about the Standard of Conduct for RIAs (“RIA Interpretation”), and a CRS—Customer/Client Relationship Summary for both broker-dealers and RIAs. That was the beginning of a lengthy process, and the outcome is uncertain. However, if these rules are finalized, the impact on the securities industry and investors will be significant.

My first reaction is that Reg BI, which imposes a best interest standard of care on broker-dealers, is strikingly similar to the DOL’s Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE). There are major differences—for example, the SEC proposal does not create a private right of action for investors, and some of the disclosure requirements are eliminated. However, once you get beyond the differences, the similarities are striking.

Let’s discuss the SEC’s Best Interest standard for broker-dealers in the context of recommendations of plan distributions and rollovers.

First, the SEC acknowledges that a rollover recommendation involves an inherent conflict of interest. In footnote 204 the SEC states: “For example, firms and their registered representatives that recommend an investor roll over plan assets to an IRA may earn commissions or other fees as a result, while a recommendation that a retail investor leave his plan assets with his old employer or roll the assets to a plan sponsored by a new employer likely results in little or no compensation for a firm or a registered representative.”

On pages 82 and 83 of the Reg BI package, the SEC explains that “Securities transactions may also include recommendations to rollover or transfer assets from one type of account to another, such as recommendations to roll over or transfer assets in an ERISA account to an IRA.”

The significance of rollovers being classified as “securities transactions” is that the proposed best interest standard of care applies to recommendations of securities transactions. That is, a recommendation to a participant to take a distribution from his or her 401(k) plan and roll over to an IRA is, in effect, a recommendation that the participant sell the mutual funds in his or her account and rollover the cash proceeds.

In fact, the rollover process involves two securities transactions. In footnote 155, the SEC explains: “A recommendation concerning the type of retirement account in which a customer should hold his retirement investments typically involves a recommended securities transaction, and thus is subject to FINRA suitability obligations. For example, a firm may recommend that an investor sell his plan assets and roll over their cash proceeds into an IRA. Recommendations to sell securities in the plan or to purchase securities for a newly-opened IRA are subject to FINRA’s suitability obligations. See FINRA Regulatory Notice 13-45.”

In addition to the existing suitability obligation, Reg BI would impose a best interest standard of care, including a duty of loyalty, such that the recommendation to sell the investments in the plan (for example, a 401(k) plan) would be subject to both suitability and best interest. The suitability and best interest standards would also apply to recommendations about the re-investment of distributed money in an IRA.

That raises a question about how a best interest recommendation of a distribution and rollover should be made. What steps should be followed? That will be the subject of my next article.

The views expressed in this article are the views of Fred Reish, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Drinker Biddle & Reath.

Share

Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #90

Parallels Between the SEC Regulation Best Interest and the DOL Best Interest Contract Exemption (Part 1)

This is my 90th article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s (DOL) fiduciary rule and exemptions. These articles also cover the DOL’s FAQs interpreting the regulation and exemptions and related developments in the securities laws.

The SEC’s proposed Regulation Best Interest (“Reg BI”) is remarkable in its similarities to the DOL’s vacated Best Interest Contract Exemption (“BICE”). This article describes some of those similarities. Keep in mind as you read this that Reg BI applies to securities recommendations, while BICE would have covered any investment or insurance recommendation by a fiduciary advisor.

Reg BI, if finalized, will require that broker-dealers and their representatives act in the “best interest” of “retail customers,” which includes IRA owners and participants. The DOL’s BICE also would have required that fiduciary advisors (including broker-dealers and their representatives) act in the “best interest” of participants and IRA owners. A major difference is that the SEC proposal covers all retail customers, while the DOL’s BICE would have covered “qualified accounts”—which includes only plans, participants and IRA owners. (I should note that Reg BI says that it covers recommendations to “legal representatives” of retail customers. That reference could include the trustees and plan committees for retirement plans. However, it’s not clear.)

Also, Reg BI is similar to BICE in that it covers recommendations to participants to take distributions from retirement plans and roll over to IRAs. Reg BI only applies where securities recommendations are made. But it appears to be the position of both the SEC and FINRA that a recommendation to take a distribution from a 401(k) plan implicitly includes a recommendation to liquidate the investments in the participant’s account, which would be a securities transaction. (I will get into more detail about recommendations to participants to take distributions and roll over to IRAs in a future article.)

In addition, both Reg BI and BICE include a duty of loyalty for recommended securities transactions. While the wording in the two pieces of guidance is slightly different, the outcome is the same . . . broker-dealers and their representatives cannot prioritize their own interests ahead of the interests of investors.

While some people refer to the new standard of care as being “suitability plus” or “enhanced suitability,” I see it differently. Based on my reading of the guidance and on comments by SEC commissioners, the suitability standard is incorporated into the new Best Interest Standard of Care, rather than the other way around. As a result, it might be better referred to as “transactional best interest.”

Unfortunately, the SEC proposal does not fully define the Best Interest Standard of Care. However, it does say that broker-dealers and their representatives have to act with “diligence, care, skill, and prudence,” which was also in the DOL’s Best Interest Standard of Care. (As an aside, the requirement to act diligently, carefully, skillfully, and prudently suggests the need for a process—similar to ERISA’s prudent man rule.) The proposed Reg BI goes on to say that its duty of care is based on the principles in the DOL’s Best Interest Standard of Care. To me, that means that a starting point for understanding the Reg BI requirements is to look at the DOL’s Best Interest Standard of Care which says that:

Investment advice is in the ‘‘Best Interest’’ of the Retirement Investor when the Adviser and Financial Institution providing the advice act with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims, based on the investment objectives, risk tolerance, financial circumstances, and needs of the Retirement Investor, without regard to the financial or other interests of the Adviser, Financial Institution or any Affiliate, Related Entity, or other party.

If you read that closely, it easily divides into three categories: a prudent person rule; a know-your-customer requirement; and a duty of loyalty. The preamble to the proposed Reg BI discusses those three principles as being key elements of its standards.

However, while the proposal would require best interest for recommendations of securities transactions, it would not mandate a duty to monitor. That is significantly different from the role of an investment adviser (RIA), where best interest monitoring is generally expected.

The views expressed in this article are the views of Fred Reish, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Drinker Biddle & Reath.

Share

Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #87

The Fiduciary Rule: What’s Next (Part 3)?

This is my 87th article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s (DOL) fiduciary rule and exemptions. These articles also cover the DOL’s FAQs interpreting the regulation and exemptions and related developments in the securities laws.

This is the third of my four-part series on the critical questions raised by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to “vacate,” or throw out, the Fiduciary Rule. The first article, Angles #85, discusses the three critical questions for the SEC and DOL to answer. The second article, Angles #86, discussed the first critical question, “Who is a fiduciary?”

This post covers the second critical question, “What is the fiduciary standard of care?”

For purposes of advice to retirement plans and participants, that’s an easy answer. It’s ERISA’s prudent man rule and duty of loyalty. That standard is statutory and, as a result, it cannot be modified by rule or regulation—by the DOL or SEC.

There is a large amount of guidance, both from the DOL and the courts, on how to comply with the standard. For example, a fiduciary advisor must engage in a prudent process—at the level of a hypothetical, knowledgeable person—taking into account that the purpose of the investments is to provide retirement benefits. That means that an advisor must consider the “relevant” factors for making a prudent recommendation. You might call that a “duty to investigate,” and then to evaluate. Courts have also said that fiduciaries must use generally accepted investment theories and prevailing investment industry standards (e.g., for asset allocation and selection of investments).

But, of course, those standards only apply if an advisor is a fiduciary. Fiduciary status was discussed in Angles #86.

The issue is more complex for fiduciary advice to IRAs. Where an advisor to an IRA owner does not engage in prohibited transactions—for example, charges a reasonable level fee (and the advisor, supervisory entity and all affiliated and relates parties do not receive anything in addition to that fee), there is not a prohibited transaction. As a result, neither the IRS nor the DOL have a basis for further regulating the advisor. On the other hand, where an advisor (or the supervisory entity, or any affiliated or related party) receives conflicted compensation, that would be a prohibited transaction and an exemption would be needed. Generally speaking, there are two forms of conflicted compensation. The first, and most common, is any payment from a third party (for example, a 12b-1 fee from a mutual fund or a commission from an insurance company). The second form of conflicted compensation is sometimes referred to as “variable” compensation (for example, a commission on each recommended transaction in a brokerage account).

Before the 5th Circuit decision, the primary exemption for those conflicts was BICE (the Best Interest Contract Exemption). That exemption permitted conflicted compensation if the advisor and the supervisory entity (e.g., a broker-dealer) adhered to the best interest standard of care (and other Impartial Conduct Standards). However, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out BICE, as well as the fiduciary regulation. After that decision, there are only a few exemptions for conflicted advice—and they are very limited.

However, the DOL will likely issue a new exemption to replace BICE, and will impose conditions. It remains to be seen what those will be. But, it’s possible that some standard of care would be imposed, perhaps the new standard that the SEC is working on—and it’s almost certain that disclosures will be required.

One thing that is certain is that the limitation for reasonable compensation will be a requirement of the exemption. It’s a statutory provision in both the Code and ERISA.

At this point, it’s impossible to know what the SEC’s new standard of care will be. There are important questions to be answered. For example, will the standard be the same for RIAs and broker-dealers when investment advice is given to retail investors, such as IRA owners? While uncertain, it is possible that a duty of loyalty will be applied to both types of advisors. And, since RIAs are already fiduciaries under the securities laws, it’s hard to imagine that a lower standard of care would be required for RIAs.

On the other hand, there is some discussion that the SEC might develop an “enhanced” suitability standard for broker-dealers. While that sounds interesting on paper, it’s more difficult to imagine what it would be. For example, the DOL has said that, if a recommendation is not suitable, it would not be prudent. However, the DOL went on to say that, if a recommendation is suitable, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s prudent. So, the question is, will the SEC draw a line between those two standards and, if so, where will that line be?

On a related point, and as a guess, I don’t believe the DOL or the SEC will say that the new standards can be enforced by retail investors. In other words, it is likely that the standards will only be enforceable by regulators. While that may be the outcome for the case for IRAs and other retail accounts, ERISA allows for private claims for violations of its provisions, and those statutory rights cannot be taken away by rules or regulations. As a result, advice to plans and participants will be enforceable as private claims.

Since the SEC’s proposed guidance will be issued in the near future, we will know the answers soon enough.

The views expressed in this article are the views of Fred Reish, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Drinker Biddle & Reath.

Share

Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #85

The Fiduciary Rule: What’s Next (Part 1)?

This is my 85th article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s (DOL) fiduciary rule and exemptions. These articles also cover the DOL’s FAQs interpreting the regulation and exemptions and related developments in the securities laws.

By now, it’s common knowledge that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown out the fiduciary rule. That includes the regulation expanding the definition of fiduciary advice and the related prohibited transaction exemptions, for example, the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE). At the same time, the SEC is working on a new “best interest” standard of care, and the DOL is working on amending the fiduciary regulation and related exemptions.

That raises the critical questions . . . where are we now and where are we going?

Let’s start by looking at the issues that the DOL and SEC need to address. Subsequent posts will cover each of these points in more detail.

1. Who is a fiduciary?

This is the threshold question. The 5th Circuit’s opinion said that a fiduciary relationship is one of “trust and confidence” which, in the Court’s opinion, was not typical of arrangements with brokers. Instead, the Court focused on the “mutuality” and “regular basis” parts of the old fiduciary definition (which is discussed in the next Angles, #86).

While not certain, it is possible that the Department of Labor will propose a new regulation, which expands on the old definition and which focuses on the elements of trust and confidence, as well as other criteria.

Meanwhile, the SEC has an entirely different approach. The DOL approach is “functional,” that is, it is based on conduct—if you act in a way that satisfies the fiduciary definition, you are a fiduciary regardless of your registration as a representative of a broker-dealer or RIA. By contrast, the SEC has, at least in the past, regarded representatives of RIAs and broker-dealers as providing different levels of advisory services (e.g., primary versus incidental) and, as a result, as being subject to different standards of care. A critical question for the SEC is whether RIAs and broker-dealers will have the same standard of care.

2. What is the fiduciary standard of care?

The fiduciary standard of care for advice to plans and participants is the prudent man rule and the duty of loyalty. That is based on the ERISA statute and cannot be changed by regulation. (But, of course, this assumes that an advisor is a fiduciary.)

The FINRA “standard of care” for broker-dealers is suitability.

RIAs are fiduciaries under a Supreme Court decision. However, there isn’t any formal definition of that standard of care. The SEC staff has taken the position that the suitability standard applies and that investment advisors must disclose all material information to their clients to permit them to make informed decisions about transactions and their advisory relationship. In addition, from time to time, the SEC applies a “reasonable basis” standard to RIAs.

 (Out of fairness to both broker-dealers and RIAs, the requirements are greater than those described. However, this is a short article, so I am using general descriptions.)

3. How will conflicts of interest be treated under the new rules?

This is the area of greatest differences among the regulators.

 Tax-qualified, ERISA-governed retirement plans are subject to the prohibited transaction rules in ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. (Those rules are virtually identical in both statutes.) However, only the Code applies to IRAs.

Under both ERISA and the Code, financial conflicts of interest are prohibited. Generally speaking, the conflicts relate to compensation paid to financial institutions, individual advisors or any affiliates. In other words, it’s prohibited for fiduciary advisors and their firms to receive conflicted compensation. However, the DOL has the authority to issue exceptions (called “exemptions”) to the prohibited transaction rules. The most helpful exemption—the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE)—was thrown out by the 5th Circuit. As a result, in many cases conflicted compensation for fiduciary advice will be prohibited—if the 5th Circuit decision is the final word. However, it’s likely that the DOL will issue new exemptions—with conditions.

Both the SEC and FINRA generally rely on disclosures to mitigate conflicts. In other words, if adequately disclosed, it is permissible to have financial conflicts of interest for SEC and FINRA regulated advisors.

That describes the general lay of the land. My next few posts will deal with each of those three points.

We live in interesting times.

The views expressed in this article are the views of Fred Reish, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Drinker Biddle & Reath.

Share

Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #82

Undisclosed (and Disclosed) 12b-1 Fees: The Different Views of the SEC and DOL

This is my 82nd article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s (DOL) fiduciary rule and exemptions. These articles also cover the DOL’s FAQs interpreting the regulation and exemptions and related developments in the securities laws.

On February 12, 2018, the SEC announced a remedial program called the “Share Class Selection Disclosure Initiative” (“SCSDI”). Simply stated, the temporary program says that investment advisers who have received undisclosed 12b-1 fees can correct and self-report. In that case, the SEC staff will not recommend financial penalties. However, if an investment adviser does not correct and self-report and the SEC later examines the adviser and discovers those undisclosed payments, the staff will likely be more aggressive about recommending penalties (because the advisers were given the opportunity to self-correct, but failed to do so).

If you would like to know more about that program, here is a link to an article written by two of my firm’s securities lawyers, Jim Lundy and Mary Hansen.

The purpose of this post is not to describe the SEC program, but instead to discuss the same issue from the perspective of the Fiduciary Rule and the prohibited transaction exemptions (and, in particular, the Best Interest Contract Exemption, BICE). This article focuses on investment advice and management for IRAs, rather than retirement plans. However, the principles are the same.

So . . . what are the consequences under the Fiduciary Rule (which became applicable on June 9, 2017) for advisory services to IRAs, where an investment adviser receives undisclosed 12b-1 fees? (By the way, the Fiduciary Rule also applies to advice by financial advisors and insurance agents and brokers. In that regard, it is of broader application than the SEC rules.)

To analyze the issues, the advice needs to be considered in two scenarios. The first is where a fiduciary adviser is providing non-discretionary investment advice; the second is where the fiduciary adviser is managing the account with discretion.

Where a fiduciary adviser has discretion, that is, where the adviser is actually managing the account, the adviser can only receive his stated fee. Stated slightly differently, the adviser cannot receive anything in addition to the advisory fee that results from the adviser’s investment decisions. BICE does not provide an exemption, or exception, for discretionary investment management; BICE only applies to non-discretionary investment advice.

And, to further complicate matters, the Fiduciary Rule prohibits the receipt of additional 12b-1 fees for discretionary investment management regardless of whether those fees are disclosed or not.

How can an adviser remedy the situation? The answer is that, to the extent that a discretionary fiduciary adviser receives additional payments (e.g., 12b-1 fees), the adviser must either offset those payments against the advisory fee—on a dollar-for-dollar basis—or must pay the 12b-1 fees over into the IRA.

As a result, the Fiduciary Rule is more demanding for discretionary investment management than the SEC rules are.

What about non-discretionary investment advice to IRAs?

Prior to June 9, 2017, the receipt of any additional payments for non-discretionary investment advice would have been treated the same as the receipt of additional payments for discretionary investment management (that is, the retention of those payments would have been prohibited). However, on June 9 the “transition” version of BICE became applicable. Under transition BICE, a fiduciary adviser can receive compensation in addition to the advisory fee so long as the adviser’s total compensation is reasonable (and so long as the firm, that is, the RIA or broker-dealer has policies, procedures and practices that ensure that the additional compensation does not incent the fiduciary adviser to make recommendations that are not in the best interest of the retirement investor).

Unfortunately, that second requirement—the policies, procedures and practices—is not well defined. Almost any additional compensation could be viewed as a potential incentive for a fiduciary adviser to increase his or her compensation. However, I believe that, if attention is paid to the subject, and if the people designing the policies, procedures and practices understand the rules, compliant programs can be developed.

But that assumes that the additional compensation was disclosed, which is different than the SEC’s SCSD Initiative. The SEC’s remedial program was designed to provide correction and reporting of the failure to disclose the receipt of additional 12b-1 fees. In that case, I believe that the DOL would take the same position as the SEC. That is, I believe that the DOL would take the position that, if the retirement investor (that is, the IRA owner) had not authorized the payment of the additional 12b-1 fees, the fiduciary adviser was setting his own compensation without the approval of the IRA owner and, therefore, the receipt of those payments was a prohibited transaction for which BICE did not provide relief.

Viewed in that way, the DOL Fiduciary Rule for non-discretionary advice is similar to the SEC’s, but still more demanding. For example, even if the additional 12b-1 fees were disclosed, the Fiduciary Rule and BICE require that the total compensation be reasonable. And, if not disclosed, there is a good chance that the Fiduciary Rule and BICE would be interpreted in a way that results in the 12b-1 fees being prohibited transactions.

Where do we end up? First, fully disclosed compensation, if reasonable, is permissible under the Fiduciary Rule and the exemptions for non-discretionary investment advice. Second, the receipt of additional amounts, such as 12b-1 fees, is prohibited where the adviser has discretion to manage the account, even if the total compensation is reasonable.

In this brave new world of the Fiduciary Rule, it’s important to understand the differences between the rules of the SEC, FINRA and the DOL. That is particularly true for advisory services to IRAs, since my experience is that many advisers to IRAs have little, if any, understanding of the new Fiduciary Rule and exemptions.

The views expressed in this article are the views of Fred Reish, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Drinker Biddle & Reath.

Share

Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #81

The Fiduciary Rule Prohibits Commissions . . . or Not (Myth #6)

This is my 81st article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s (DOL) fiduciary rule and exemptions. These articles also cover the DOL’s FAQs interpreting the regulation and exemptions and related developments in the securities laws.

This is another in my series of articles about myths concerning the Fiduciary Rule. The myth for this post is the oft-repeated statement that the Fiduciary Rule prohibits the payment of commissions.

Before getting into the explanation, though, I should give you some background information. Under the prohibited transaction rules in ERISA, a fiduciary advisor cannot make a recommendation that causes a payment from a third party (for example, a 12b-1 fee or an insurance commission) or that directly increases the advisor’s compensation (for example, a commission on a securities transaction). While those ERISA prohibited transactions only apply to retirement plans, there are virtually identical rules under the Internal Revenue Code–which apply to both qualified retirement plans and IRAs.

However, those prohibited transactions apply to advisors who are fiduciaries. As a result, the prohibitions were not a problem for non-fiduciary advisors prior to the June 9, 2017 expansion of the definition of fiduciary. With that new Fiduciary Rule, almost every advisor to retirement plans or IRAs is now a fiduciary. That includes financial advisors of broker-dealers, investment advisors with RIAs, and insurance agents and brokers.

Now that advisors are usually fiduciaries, ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code prohibit the receipt (i) of payments from third parties and (ii) of compensation that varies with the recommended investments or insurance products. If that were the end of the story, then it would not be a myth to say that commissions are prohibited by the Fiduciary Rule. But, it’s not the end of the story. On June 9, 2017, the “transition” version of the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE) also came into effect. Under transition BICE, there is only one explicit restriction on compensation. That is that advisors and their financial institutions can receive no more than reasonable compensation for their services. In other words, and as a general rule, the BIC exemption permits the payment of reasonable compensation in virtually all forms. As the DOL said in its preamble to the BIC exemption: “[T]he Department confirms that this exemption provides relief for commissions paid directly by the plan or IRA, as well as commissions, trailing commissions, sales loads, 12b-1 fees, revenue sharing payments, and other payments by investment product manufacturers or other third parties to Advisers and Financial Institutions.”

But . . . there is still more to this story.

The Department of Labor has also said, on several occasions, that it expects financial institutions (such as broker-dealers and RIAs) to have policies, procedures and practices that ensure that the form of compensation does not cause advisors to recommend investments that are not in the best interest of the retirement investors. As a result, financial institutions should develop policies, procedures and practices for those purposes. That could include reducing the differences between levels of commissions, close supervision of certain types of transactions, and/or specifying the process by which recommendations are to be developed. In other words, the development of those policies, procedures and practices needs to be done thoughtfully. There is no “one-size-fits-all” solution that will satisfy the requirements for all types of transactions. For example, it is difficult to imagine a single policy that would cover issues as diverse as recruitment bonuses, recommendations to participants to roll over, and sales contests.

I am concerned that some broker-dealers, banks and RIAs may be underestimating the importance of well-developed policies for each of the types of potential conflicts of interest that could impact advice to plans, participants and IRA owners.

Note: The BIC exemption only provides relief for nondiscretionary investment advice. This article does not apply to arrangements for discretionary investment management.

The views expressed in this article are the views of Fred Reish, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Drinker Biddle & Reath.

 

Share

Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #80

Is the New Fiduciary Rule Enforceable During the Transition Period? (Myth #5)

This is my 80th article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s (DOL) fiduciary rule and exemptions. These articles also cover the DOL’s FAQs interpreting the regulation and exemptions and related developments in the securities laws.

This is another in my series of articles about myths concerning the Fiduciary Rule. This article deals with the “myth” that the fiduciary rule will not be enforced during the transition period. As the word “myth” suggests, that’s not correct.

As background, the Department of Labor said that it will not, under appropriate circumstances, enforce the requirements of the fiduciary regulation and prohibited transaction exemptions (and, particularly, the Best Interest Contract Exemption [BICE]):

Accordingly, during the phased implementation period from June 9, 2017 to July 1, 2019, the Department will not pursue claims against fiduciaries who are working diligently and in good faith to comply with the Fiduciary Rule and applicable provisions of the PTEs [Prohibited Transaction Exemptions] or treat those fiduciaries as being in violation of the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs.”

The IRS has agreed to abide by that non-enforcement policy.

At first blush, that could be interpreted to be a free pass for compliance until the transition period ends on July 1, 2019. However, it would be a mistake to read it that way. The DOL went on to say:

At the same time, however, the Department emphasizes, as it has in the past, that firms and advisers should work “diligently and good faith to comply” with their fiduciary obligation during the Transition Period. The “basic fiduciary norms and standards of fair dealings” are still required of fiduciaries during the Transition Period (citations omitted).

As a result, we know that there is a “line in the sand” and crossing that line could result in DOL enforcement. However, we don’t know quite where the line is. Elsewhere, though, the DOL has said that it expects financial institutions (for example, broker-dealers and RIA firms) to develop policies, procedures and practices which are designed to ensure that advisors do not succumb to conflicts of interest and do not make recommendations that are not in the best interest of retirement investors. As a result, it would be poor risk management for broker-dealers and RIAs to provide investment advice to plans, participants and IRAs (“retirement investors”) without having adopted appropriate policies, procedures and practices . . . and then supervising compliance with those policies, procedures and practices. Stated slightly differently, there is a risk that the failure to take those steps could result in the DOL finding that a broker-dealer or RIA had not worked “diligently and in good faith” to comply with the fiduciary rule and the PTEs.

So, the first lesson is that the non-enforcement policy does not give a free pass during the transition period. Instead, there are expectations about good faith efforts to comply with the Impartial Conduct Standards and about the adoption and application of policies, procedures and practices to mitigate the effects of conflicts of interest and incentive compensation.

A second enforcement risk is that private claims by investors can be made under the fiduciary rule and the prohibited transaction exemptions. It is clear that, for advice to plans and participants (which would include, for example, recommendations of rollovers), there is a private right of action under ERISA. In other words, for advice to plans and participants, ERISA’s remedial provisions apply even during the transition period. As a result, while DOL and IRS enforcement may be limited, private claims can be filed on behalf of fiduciaries and participants.

The issue is somewhat more complex for claims of fiduciary breaches and failures to satisfy the PT exemptions for IRAs. However, it is likely that claimant’s attorneys will be asserting fiduciary claims with creative theories. For example, if an advisor with a broker-dealer engages in a prohibited transaction (that is, receives compensation from a third party, such as a mutual fund, or otherwise makes recommendations that affect the level of his or her compensation), the broker-dealer and advisor would need the benefit of a prohibited transaction exemption—probably BICE. That creates a Hobson’s choice. If the broker-dealer defends itself by saying that it was not claiming the benefit of the BIC exemption (and, therefore, was not bound by the Impartial Conduct Standards, including the best interest standard of care), that defense is effectively an admission of the commission of a prohibited transaction. On the other hand, if the broker-dealer responds by claiming the benefit of the exemption, the broker-dealer is agreeing that it is bound by the Impartial Conduct Standards. While neither of those may be explicit claims available to claimants, those choices can put financial institutions and their advisors in difficult positions.

Finally, there may be claims by state regulators. For example, the State of Massachusetts recently filed a claim against a broker-dealer on the basis that it violated its policies and procedures concerning sales contests. Those policies and procedures were developed as a result of the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule and prohibited transaction exemptions. In other words, the claim was not that the broker-dealer violated the Impartial Conduct Standards, but instead it violated its own policies and procedures, which were developed in order to comply with the those Standards. (By the way, individual investors and their attorneys could also assert claims on that basis.)

What does this mean? It means that the fiduciary “waters” are treacherous. It means that advisors and their financial institutions should re-double their efforts to provide documented advice that is in the best interest of retirement investors. The easiest way to avoid difficulties is to comply with the new rules.

The views expressed in this article are the views of Fred Reish, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Drinker Biddle & Reath.

Share

Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #79

The Fiduciary Rule: Mistaken Beliefs (#4)

This is my 79th article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s (DOL) fiduciary rule and exemptions. These articles also cover the DOL’s FAQs interpreting the regulation and exemptions and related developments in the securities laws.

This post continues my series on myths about the fiduciary rule and prohibited transaction exemptions. This article focuses on the issue of “reasonable compensation” for RIAs, broker-dealers and their advisors for their services to retirement plans and IRAs (“qualified accounts”), and what, if any, changes will be made to that requirement. The myth is that the SEC will draft rules that eliminate the reasonable compensation rule. That is incorrect. The reasonable compensation limitation on advisors and their supervisory entities is here to stay.

This article explains why the reasonable compensation limits are here to stay and what advisors and their supervisory entities need to do to comply with those rules.

The fiduciary regulation is currently in effect. It first applied on June 9, 2017. And, it applied in full force. That is, while there are transition versions of the prohibited transaction exemptions, the fiduciary regulation was not modified to be a transition version.

The effect of the fiduciary regulation is to broadly expand the definition of who is a fiduciary. Because of the regulation, virtually anyone who makes an investment or insurance recommendation to a plan, a participant, or an IRA owner, is a fiduciary.

The conflict of interest exceptions (called “exemptions”), on the other hand, only partially applied on June 9th. The most important exemption—the Best Interest Contract Exemption, or BICE—requires only that advisors and their supervisory entities adhere to the Impartial Conduct Standards. Those standards are:

  • The best interest standard of care, which is, in its essence, the prudent person rule and the duty of loyalty.
  • No materially misleading statements.
  • No more than reasonable compensation for the individual advisor and the entity.

However, even if the reasonable compensation condition in BICE is removed from the exemption, that will not mean that advisers and their supervisory entities can ignore that limit. And, even if the SEC or FINRA do not impose a reasonable compensation limitation, that will not change the rule. Why is that?

The reasonable compensation limit is found in both the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA. In other words, it is a statutory requirement. Neither the DOL, the SEC nor FINRA can issue a rule that overrides a statute.

But, what if the definition of fiduciary is changed and an advisor is no longer a fiduciary? That doesn’t matter either. The reasonable compensation limitation in the Code and ERISA applies to all service providers, regardless of whether they are fiduciaries.

With that background, the essential question is, how do advisors and their financial institutions determine the reasonableness of their fees? Before I answer that question, though, I want to explain two threshold issues. The first is the definition of compensation and the second is the definition of reasonableness.

ERISA and the Code use “compensation” to cover all payments, monetary and non-monetary, that are compensatory. A compensatory payment is one which is partially or entirely, directly or indirectly, attributable to an investment or insurance recommendation. The DOL uses a “but for” test to determine if a payment is compensation, that is, would the broker-dealer or RIA firm have received the payment “but for” the investment recommendations. If the payment is partially or entirely, directly or indirectly, attributable to investment recommendations, it is compensatory.

With regard to “reasonableness,” the DOL explains that the reasonableness of compensation is determined by the services provided by the advisor. In effect, the marketplace defines “reasonable” because, in most cases, the ordinary and customary compensation for the services associated with particular transactions is reasonable.

More specifically, the DOL explained in its preamble to BICE:

The reasonableness of the fees depends on the particular facts and circumstances at the time of the recommendation. Several factors inform whether compensation is reasonable including, inter alia, the market pricing of service(s) provided and the underlying asset(s), the scope of monitoring, and the complexity of the product. No single factor is dispositive in determining whether compensation is reasonable; the essential question is whether the charges are reasonable in relation to what the investor receives.

Now, let’s turn to the steps that advisors and their supervisory entities should take to determine whether the compensation for a particular type of investment transaction is reasonable. Financial institutions and advisors need to obtain information about the marketplace pricing for various types of transactions. For example, what is the range of customary compensation for individual variable annuities? What is customary for referrals to third party asset managers? What is customary for mutual funds? And so on.

While it may be possible for financial institutions to collect that information on their own (and to update it periodically . . . perhaps annually), the more practical and cost-effective answer is to work with a benchmarking service that obtains and updates that information. Of course, advisors and financial institutions should investigate the experience and quality of the benchmarking service, and the integrity and timeliness of its data.

Keep in mind that the reasonable compensation limits are in the prohibited transaction rules. As a result, the burden of proof is on the financial institution, and not on the retirement investor. In other words, it’s important to have market data and to develop compensation policies that are consistent with the data. Since it is likely that the levels of reasonable compensation will change over time, that information should be updated at reasonable intervals.

The views expressed in this article are the views of Fred Reish, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Drinker Biddle & Reath.

 

 

Share

Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #78

The Fiduciary Rule: Mistaken Beliefs (#3)

This is my 78th article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s (DOL) fiduciary rule and exemptions. These articles also cover the DOL’s FAQs interpreting the regulation and exemptions and related developments in the securities laws.

The fiduciary regulation has been in effect since June of last year — a period of over six months. As you might expect, we are seeing mistakes and misunderstandings about activities that can result in fiduciary status for advisors. This article covers one of those.

The myth for this Angles is that broker-dealers and RIAs, and their advisors, must only recommend the lowest cost investments, for example, mutual funds with the lowest expense ratios. That is not correct.

In fact, the DOL has explained that:

“Consistent with the Department’s prior interpretations of this standard [the reasonable compensation standard], the Department confirms that an Adviser and Financial Institution do not have to recommend the transaction that is the lowest cost or that generates the lowest fees without regard to other relevant factors.” [81 Fed. Reg. 21002, at page 21030 (April 8, 2016)]

As indicated in that quote, and as explained elsewhere by the Department of Labor and several courts, an advisor’s fiduciary responsibility is to recommend investments with reasonable expenses . . . or, in a more specific context, to recommend mutual funds with expense ratios within the range of reasonableness for the particular plan and the type of fund.

For advisors with broker-dealers, the expense ratio of mutual funds typically includes a cost component and a compensation component (that is, compensation for the advisor). Assume, for example, that the expense ratio of a mutual fund is 100 basis points and that it includes a 12b-1 fee of 25 basis points. Viewed in terms of cost and compensation, the true cost of the mutual fund is 75 basis points and the cost of the advisor’s compensation is 25 basis points. In order to perform a proper analysis of cost of the investment, that distinction must be made.

Once the “true cost” is determined, that should be used as the expense ratio of the mutual fund for purpose of the fiduciary analysis of whether the cost of the investment is reasonable. (Note that, the reasonableness of the cost of an investment is a fiduciary issue measured by the best interest standard of care; however, the reasonableness of the compensation of the firm and the advisor is a prohibited transaction issue.)

A second step in the fiduciary analysis of cost is the determination of whether or not the appropriate share class is being recommended (including, for example, whether waivers are available). Generally speaking, the lowest cost available share class should be recommended. However, keep in mind that I am referring to the lowest “net cost” share class. In other words, the advisor’s compensation (for example, the 12b-1 fee) should be deducted to determine the true cost and then should be compared to the net cost of the other share classes of the same mutual fund.

Once an investment’s cost has been appropriately determined, and the appropriate share class has been determined, that information should be compared to similar data for other mutual funds in the same investment category. Again, though, the requirement is not that the lowest-cost investment be recommended. Instead, it is that the cost be reasonable relative to the value provided. On a practical level, that means that there is a range of reasonableness for a given type of investment. The risk is in recommending an investment that is clearly more expensive than what is typically charged for that type of investment.

Since a broker-dealer, RIA and advisor are fiduciaries for this purpose, the process used for the selection of investments and the determination of the reasonableness of cost should produce documentation that can be retained and retrieved. In other words, firms and advisors should be in a position to prove that they engaged in a prudent process.

The views expressed in this article are the views of Fred Reish, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Drinker Biddle & Reath.

 

Share

Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #76

Discretionary Management of IRAs: Prohibited Transaction Issues for RIAs

This is my 76th article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s (DOL) fiduciary rule and exemptions. These articles also cover the DOL’s FAQs interpreting the regulation and exemptions and related developments in the securities laws.

The regulation defining fiduciary advice for plans, participants and IRAs applied on June 9, 2017. As a result, we now have some experience with the fiduciary regulation and the transition prohibited transaction exemptions. Based on that experience, there are some significant misunderstandings about how the rules work. This article discusses one of those.

If a broker-dealer or RIA firm receives prohibited (or “conflicted”) compensation from an IRA, the compensation may be permissible under the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE). During the transition period (until July 1, 2019), BICE only requires that fiduciary advisors (such as broker-dealers and RIAs, and their representatives) adhere to the Impartial Conduct Standards. There are three Impartial Conduct Standards. Those are:

  • The best interest standard of care (which is, in its essence, a combination of ERISA’s prudent man rule and duty of loyalty).
  • The compensation of the financial institution and the individual advisor is no more than a reasonable amount for the services rendered.
  • Neither the financial institution nor the advisor makes any materially misleading mis-statements.

There are two other considerations, though. The first is that BICE is an exemption to the prohibited transaction rules and, therefore, the burden of proof is on the financial institution (e.g., the RIA firm or broker-dealer). As a result, compliance with those three Impartial Conduct Standards should be documented in a retrievable form. The second is that the Department of Labor has said that financial institutions need to have policies, procedures and practices that ensure that their advisors are adhering to the Impartial Conduct Standards.

All in all, though, it is possible to comply with those requirements. Stated another way, the most burdensome requirements in BICE were delayed until July 1, 2019—and will likely be revised before those rules apply.

However, there is a caveat. That is, BICE only applies to non-discretionary investment advice. In other words, if the financial institution or its advisors have the responsibility or authority to make the decisions, or if they actually make the investment or transaction decisions, and there is a financial conflict of interest (that is, a prohibited transaction), BICE does not provide relief. To make matters even worse, there are very few exemptions for prohibited transactions resulting from discretionary decisions. Based on conversations with RIAs over the last few months, I have learned that many of them are not aware that, where they have financial conflicts (for example, 12b-1 fees or payments from custodians) for discretionary investment management for IRAs, there is usually not an exemption and the compensation is prohibited.

In other words, where advisors have discretion, the “cleanest” approach is “pure” level fee advice. Any payments or financial benefits from third parties (e.g., custodians, mutual funds, insurance companies) are prohibited. The DOL’s definition of “discretion” is very broad, for example, if the advisor selects the share class, and the investor does not approve that share class in advance, the advisor (and therefore the financial institution) has exercised discretion.

With that in mind, my advice is that RIAs and broker-dealers should consult with their ERISA attorneys to make sure that they understand these rules and are in compliance.

The views expressed in this article are the views of Fred Reish, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Drinker Biddle & Reath.

 

 

Share