Category Archives: DOL

Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #68


broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, General, prudent, registered investment advisers, SEC

Recommendations of Distributions: The SEC Joins the Fray

This is my 68th 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.

In 2013, FINRA put its stake in the ground on recommendations of distributions and rollovers when it issued Regulatory Notice 13-45. The DOL has, with the development of its fiduciary regulation over the past few years—which became applicable on June 9 of this year—taken a similar, but more demanding position. However, the DOL’s guidance has more teeth than FINRA’s, because it is backed by a standard of care—the prudent man rule and duty of loyalty—and by the prohibited transaction rules in ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. Recently, the SEC has joined the fray with the issuance of its ReTIRE initiative and its examination priorities over the past few years.

The SEC has completed the first phase of its ReTIRE initiative. This Angles article reports on the observations from the first phase and the current examination priorities.

Needless to say, recommendations and rollovers are issues of concern to the SEC and are, in fact, being examined. RIAs and broker-dealers who do not have well-developed practices and documentation for recommending rollovers and distributions may be surprised when the SEC raises those issues and faults their practices. However, my belief is that compliance with the DOL’s best interest standard of care (that is, the prudent man rule and the duty of loyalty) will satisfy the standard of care and conflicts of interest concerns of both the DOL and the SEC. As a result, broker-dealers and RIAs should focus on compliance with the DOL rules (especially in light of the SEC’s examination positions). Additionally, broker-dealers and RIAs should seriously consider affirmatively disclosing the conflicts of interest inherent in recommending distributions and rollovers.

Here is some additional information about the SEC examinations and their observations:

  • The SEC has conducted over 250 examinations under the ReTIRE initiative.
  • Specific areas of concern have been uncovered during the examinations. Those include:
  • Recommendations to investors/retirees of inappropriate share classes.
  • Misleading marketing materials regarding offerings and rollovers.
  • Lack of documentation to support the reasonableness of recommendations (including rollovers).
  • Vague or omitted disclosures related to fees, conflicts and services of affiliates.
  • Misleading touting of credentials.
  • Supervision and compliance breakdowns.

We expect that the SEC’s examinations will continue to focus on issues related to retirees and older investors, including distribution and rollover issues.

As an observation, in a recent SEC examination of a broker-dealer, the report specifically referenced practices which could violate FINRA Regulatory Notice 13-45. As a result, now is a good time for broker-dealers to review their practices, including advisor education, under 13-45, as well as the related policies, procedures and supervision.

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 #67


BICE, DOL, fiduciary, prudent, SEC

Fiduciary Rule: From the DOL to the SEC

This is my 67th 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.

It now seems certain that the DOL will extend the applicability date of the final exemptions to July 1, 2019, or thereabouts. In any event, it will be a long extension. As a practical matter, that means that the transition rules under the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE) and Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24 will be extended until June 30, 2019 . . . in other words, the transition rules will continue until the applicability of revised final exemptions.

The extended time will be used for the DOL and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to cooperate in the development of new fiduciary rules by the SEC (and perhaps changes to the DOL’s fiduciary regulation) and for revised exemptions to be issued by the DOL for BICE and 84-24.

However, that coordination will probably not produce rules as favorable as some expect nor as unfavorable as others anticipate. Let me explain that comment.

The DOL’s new fiduciary regulation—which became fully applicable on June 9 of this year—defines the recommendations that cause an advisor and his or her supervisory entity to be fiduciaries. For example, if an advisor recommends an investment, an investment manager, an investment strategy or policy, a withdrawal from an IRA or a distribution and rollover from a plan, that is already fiduciary advice.

Since that’s a regulation, the DOL can amend it. However, I doubt that any of those recommendations will be removed from the category of fiduciary advice. On the other hand, an amended regulation could expand the circumstances in which selling is allowed without becoming fiduciary advice (perhaps with enhanced disclosures of non-fiduciary status) and could require a more personalized recommendation, e.g., a recommendation that is individualized to a plan, participant or IRA owner. However, I doubt that the changes will substantially alter the current landscape.

The second fiduciary issue is the standard of care—the dual duties of prudence and loyalty. For advice to plans and participants, those duties are statutory. They cannot be changed by regulation. And, they cannot be changed by the SEC. Only Congress can amend the law (and this Congress seems to have a difficult time doing anything).

However, the statutory prudent man rule and duty of loyalty only apply to advice to ERISA plans and their participants. For IRAs, those duties (which are referred to as the “best interest standard of care”) are imposed by the exemptions, for example, BICE. (As an aside, that means that advisors and their firms only need to comply with the best interest standard of care for IRAs if they are committing prohibited transactions by, e.g., receiving variable compensation or third party compensation. So, for example, a level fee advisor to an IRA would not be committing a prohibited transaction and, therefore, would not need to comply with the conditions of an exemption, e.g., the best interest standard of care.) However, the DOL can amend exemptions. So, BICE and 84-24 could be changed to a standard other than the best interest standard of care. Having said that, though, there may not be significant changes. If you look at the best interest standard, it requires that the advisor and his or her firm act prudently and loyally. It’s possible that the SEC could adopt the ERISA rule as the standard for retail advice for broker-dealers and RIAs. In any event, it’s difficult to imagine a new SEC standard that is much different than prudence and loyalty.

With regard to disclosures for exemptions, it’s possible—perhaps even likely—that the DOL will follow the SEC’s lead. Before the DOL does that, though, it must make an independent finding that the SEC’s disclosures are adequately protective of the interests of plans, participants and IRA owners. In that regard, the DOL needs to consider the effectiveness of the disclosures, as well as the facts to be disclosed. Nonetheless, I believe that the SEC will be leader on disclosures and the DOL will make every effort to use the SEC disclosures as conditions of the prohibited transaction exemptions. That will be more than is required under the transition exemptions, but it will probably be significantly less than is required under the current versions of the final exemptions.

We are working with clients to develop their strategies and comments for the SEC. I expect to have additional insights as those develop.

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 #65


BICE, DOL, fiduciary, prohibited transaction, prudent

Unexpected Consequences of Fiduciary Rule

This is my 65th article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s 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 and best interest standards of care, as well as the prohibited transaction rules, will impact advisors in some unexpected ways. That is particularly true of investment advice to IRAs. Here is an example.

When plan or IRA assets are held by a custodian, an advisor often has the ability to recommend either transaction-fee (TF) mutual funds or no-transaction fee (NTF) mutual funds. The recommendation of either TF or NTF funds is a fiduciary act for plan assets, and it will be a best interest act for IRA assets—if the advisor or his or her firm receives any payments beyond a stated advisory fee that is level. (In effect, the payments from the custodian “unlevelize” the advisory fee.)

For both the prudence and best interest standards of care (which are virtually identical), an advisor must consider whether it is prudent to recommend a TF fund or an NTF fund. The issue is that NTF funds typically have a higher expense ratio, while TF funds charge an initial transaction cost but usually have a lower expense ratio. As a general statement, NTF funds would be appropriate for short-term holdings, while TF funds would be more cost-effective for longer term holdings.

To further compound matters, there are also prohibited transaction issues. Some custodians pay money to advisors if the advisors select NTF funds (because, I assume, the custodians make more money on NTF funds). The Department of Labor would consider those payments to be prohibited transactions, since they result from an advisor’s recommendation and since they generate payments above and beyond the advisor’s stated level fee.

However, not all is lost. Under the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE), where an advisor receives additional compensation that is prohibited under these rules, the additional compensation is permissible, if the conditions of the exemption are met. One of the BICE conditions is that the total compensation cannot be more than a reasonable amount. Note that, for plan purposes, the additional compensation would need to be disclosed in the advisor’s 408(b)(2) disclosures. In addition, and for both plan and IRA assets, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that an assertion could be made that undisclosed compensation is impermissible (since, arguably, the advisor is setting its own compensation as a result of the nondisclosure). As a result, an advisor should disclose, at the beginning of the fiduciary relationship, all of the compensation which the advisor will or may receive.

However, there are two other conditions for BICE. The first is that the advisor cannot make any materially misleading statements about the transactions or the compensation. The second is that the advisor must adhere to the best interest standard of care. That standard of care includes deciding whether the prudent recommendation is to use TF or NTF funds. If those conditions are not satisfied, the additional compensation is impermissible, at least from the perspective of the Department of Labor.

To make matters even more complex, the Best Interest Contract Exemption only protects compensation resulting from non-discretionary advice. So, for example, if the advisor is the one who decides to use NTF funds, that decision amounts to discretion. In that case, BICE would not be available to permit the prohibited payments from the custodian.

Now that the final fiduciary rule applies (as of June 9, 2017), advisors need to review all of their sources of compensation directly or indirectly from “qualified” assets (that is, plans, participants or IRAs). The changes are more far-reaching than most people think.

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 #64


BICE, DOL, fiduciary, General, prudent

What Does the Best Interest Standard of Care Require?

This is my 64th article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s 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 best interest standard of care is found, among other places, in the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE). The standard is a combination of ERISA’s prudent man rule and duty of loyalty. In fact, in the prudence portion of the definition, the only change is that the words “prudent man” are changed to “prudent person.” But, that begs the question, what does the prudent person rule require?

Generally speaking, it requires the following:

  • A prudent process by a hypothetical knowledgeable person who obtains and evaluates the information needed to make a careful and skillful decision.
  • With regard to investments, it requires that fiduciary advisors adhere to generally accepted investment theories. DOL guidance is clear that, in interpreting the best interest standard of care, fiduciaries are to look to ERISA’s history. And, ERISA’s history confirms that generally accepted investment theories are to be used. Again, though, what does that mean? Among other things, it means that IRA owners and plan participants should be advised to invest in a portfolio with asset allocation based on their needs, objectives and circumstances. The DOL explained in the preamble to its participant investment advice regulation (§2550.408g-1) that:

“After careful consideration of all the comments on the issue, the Department does not believe it has a sufficient basis for determining appropriate changes to the generally accepted investment theory standard. While several commenters described theories and practices they believe to be generally accepted, there did not appear to be any consensus among them, with the exception of modern portfolio theory,22 which the Department believes is already reflected in the rule’s reference to investment theories that take into account the historic returns of different asset classes over defined periods of time.

22This is consistent with a survey of literature on generally accepted investment theories prepared for the Department. See Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP, Generally Accepted Investment Theories (July 11, 2007) (unpublished, on file with the Department of Labor).”

  • It is hard to imagine that broader concepts of diversification would not also be considered to be generally accepted investment theories. For example, even though portfolios may be diversified among asset classes, there is an argument that the investments in each asset class should also be diversified. While this is an issue for investment experts, and not for lawyers, it seems fairly obvious that diversification by asset class and within asset classes would be, at the least, good risk management. Keep in mind that IRAs are retirement vehicles. As a result, IRAs should be invested in a manner consistent with retirement investing, which suggests, among other things, the avoidance of large losses. That is particularly true for older IRA investors.

However, in the final analysis, the retirement investor gets to decide how his money will be invested. While advisors may be obligated to recommend investment strategies that are consistent with generally accepted investment theories, a retirement investor can override those recommendations and direct that the account be invested differently. In that case, a fiduciary advisor is well-advised to obtain written directions from the retirement investor about how the investor wants the account to be invested. Armed with that direction the fiduciary advisor’s duty is to provide advice within the limits imposed by the retirement investor.

The application of fiduciary, or best interest, concepts to individual retirement investors will be new for many advisors. As a result, advisors, and their supervisory entities, should focus on the fiduciary requirements for a prudent process and for the application of general accepted investment theories.

Forewarned is forearmed.

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 #63


BICE, DOL, fiduciary, prohibited transaction, prudent

Policies and Procedures: The Fourth BICE Requirement

This is my 63rd article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s 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 August 31, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued its proposal to extend the transition period for three prohibited transaction exemptions until July 1, 2019. Those exemptions are the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE), the 84-24 exemption (for sale of annuities and insurance products), and the Principal Transactions Exemption. In all likelihood, the DOL will finalize that extension within the next 60 days.

The practical effect will be to both delay the applicability date of the final exemptions until July 1, 2019 and to extend the transition versions of those exemptions until June 30, 2019.

However, the DOL is not proposing to extend the applicability date of the fiduciary rule. The full fiduciary regulation applied earlier this year–on June 9, 2017. In other words, advisors to “qualified” accounts (i.e., plans, participant accounts and IRAs) already are fiduciaries. And, where the advisor or the advisor’s supervisory entity (for example, a broker-dealer) receives payments from third parties (such as insurance commissions or 12b-1 fees), or where the advice increases their compensation, those payments will be prohibited transactions. As a result, those advisors and entities will need the protection of a prohibited transaction exemption.

BICE is the exemption that will be used for most transactions. In order to comply with BICE, the supervisory entity and the advisor must satisfy the three Impartial Conduct Standards: the best interest standard of care; no more than reasonable compensation; and no materially misleading statements.

It is commonly believed that BICE requires satisfaction of only those three conditions. However, that is not the case. There is a fourth, and less well-known, requirement. As stated in the DOL’s August 31 guidance:

“During the Transition Period, the Department expects financial institutions to adopt such policies and procedures as they reasonably conclude are necessary to ensure that advisers comply with the impartial conduct standards. During that period, however, the Department does not require firms and advisers to give their customers a warranty regarding their adoption of specific best interest policies and procedures, nor does it insist that they adhere to all of the specific provisions of Section IV of the BIC Exemption as a condition of compliance. Instead, financial institutions retain flexibility to choose precisely how to safeguard compliance with the impartial conduct standards, whether by tamping down conflicts of interest associated with adviser compensation, increased monitoring and surveillance of investment recommendations, or other approaches or combinations of approaches.” (Emphasis added.)

As a result, supervisory entities, such as broker-dealers and RIAs, need to ensure that their practices, policies and procedures, and supervision are adequate to protect retirement investors from the conflicts arising from advisor compensation that could incent an advisor to make recommendations that are not in the best interest of a retirement investor. While the conflict can arise in any situation involving commissions or similar transactional payments, there are other, less obvious, areas where the conflict can be significant and where, therefore, the policies and practices may need to be strengthened. For example, when an advisor recommends that a participant take a distribution and roll it over to an IRA, that recommendation typically results in higher compensation for the advisor. And, where the rollover amount is large, the additional compensation can be significant. As a result, financial institutions, such as broker-dealers and RIAs, need to have compliant processes in place to ensure that inappropriate rollover recommendations are not made. In addition, those recommendations need to be supervised to ensure compliance with the best interest standards. This is an area where a conservative approach is good risk management.

The same concept applies to other types of recommendations where significant increases in compensation to advisors could result, as well as to bonus and recruiting arrangements. Any arrangement that materially increases advisor compensation should be closely vetted. That vetting should occur at three levels. The first is the design of the compensation system; the second is the development of policies and procedures to oversee that fiduciary recommendations are in the best interest of retirement investors; and the third is the supervision of those policies and procedures. Now is the time to review practices, policies and supervision in light of the DOL’s expectations.

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 #62


408(b)(2), broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, recordkeeper

Is It Possible To Be An Advisor Without Being A Fiduciary?

This is my 62nd article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule and exemptions. These articles also cover the DOL’s FAQs interpreting the regulation and exemptions and related developments in the securities laws.

Under the new fiduciary definition (that applied on June 9), an investment “suggestion” is fiduciary advice. That includes suggestions about a range of issues, including investments, insurance products, investment strategies, other investment advisors and managers, IRA transfers, and plan distributions.

Because of the breadth of the definition, it is almost impossible to be an advisor to a plan without becoming a fiduciary. Under the old rules advisors would provide investment information that, at least arguably, was not fiduciary investment advice. However, under the new definition, where an advisor provides information about investments, it’s possible, perhaps even probable, that the advisor would reasonably be viewed as having suggested that the plan sponsor, participant or IRA owner choose the investments. Otherwise, why provide information about those specific investments . . . unless it was a suggestion that the retirement investor select one or more of them?

Let’s delve into that a little more deeply . . . in the context of a 401(k) plan. It is possible that for a new plan or for a plan changing recordkeepers, the recordkeeper would provide a list of investments in response to an RFI or RFP. If properly done, the list will not be fiduciary advice—because of a fiduciary exception for recordkeepers. In turn, if the advisor does not comment on the list, either favorably or unfavorably, the advisor would not be viewed as having provided fiduciary advice.

Then, at future meetings with the plan sponsor, the advisor or the recordkeeper could simply provide information about the existing investments. However, is it feasible that an advisor would not make comments about poorly performing investments which could be viewed as “suggestions” that they be removed? If those suggestions are made by an advisor, it could be fiduciary advice. Similarly, if an investment is removed, a plan sponsor needs to select a replacement investment. Who will provide the potential replacement investments to the plan sponsor? If the advisor does, that could be a suggestion, or fiduciary advice, that one of those replacement investments be used.

Alternatively, some broker-dealers may decide that their advisors can only use recordkeepers that include fiduciary advisers on their platforms. Those platform advisers would then recommend or select a plan’s investment line-up (and, in the future, would remove and replace investments, as appropriate). That might work. However, the recommendation of a third party fiduciary investment adviser or manager is also a fiduciary act. So, while the advisor would not be a fiduciary for the recommendation of investments, the advisor could be a fiduciary for “suggesting” that the plan sponsor use a fiduciary on the recordkeeper platform.

Unfortunately, these issues have not been tested in the courts or in FINRA arbitrations . . . so, it’s almost impossible to tell where the line will be drawn. As a result, broker-dealers and RIAs need to decide whether they will take the position that they are not fiduciaries—and be subject to risk, or whether they will take a conservative position and clearly be compliant.

While these rules apply to both ERISA retirement plans and IRAs, the issue is particularly acute for plans. That is because a service provider to plans must state, in its 408(b)(2) disclosures, whether it is serving as an ERISA fiduciary. If it is not, then it can remain silent on the issue. However, if the firm and its advisors will be acting as ERISA fiduciaries, that must be affirmatively stated in the 408(b)(2) disclosures. (Note that, during the transition period, recent DOL guidance permits the firm to describe its fiduciary services in the 408(b)(2) disclosures, but does not require that the firm specifically state that it is an ERISA fiduciary . . . with one exception. If a firm has previously said in its 408(b)(2) disclosures, that it was not acting as a fiduciary, that must be corrected by affirmatively saying that it is now acting as a fiduciary.)

The new rules have a number of unforeseen applications. With the likely delay of the applicability dates of the exemptions, including of the full and final Best Interest Contract Exemption, this is a good time to think about how these rules apply and what changes need to be made.

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 #61


DOL, fiduciary, prudent, service providers

The Fiduciary Rule, Distributions and Rollovers

This is my 61st article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule and exemptions. These articles also cover the DOL’s FAQs interpreting the regulation and exemptions and related developments in the securities laws.

Now that it seems likely that the fiduciary rule and the transition exemptions will continue “as is” until at least July 1, 2019, it’s time to re-visit the fiduciary rule and the requirements of the transition exemptions. This article focuses on the requirements for recommending that a participant take a distribution and roll it over to an IRA with a financial institution and its advisor. (Practically speaking, the financial institutions will likely be broker-dealers, RIA firms, and banks and trust departments). For ease of reading, this article uses “advisor” to refer to both the entity and the individual.

In order to recommend that a participant take a distribution, the financial institution and advisor must satisfy ERISA’s prudent man rule and duty of loyalty. That is because a recommendation to a participant is considered to be advice to a plan. Among other things, that means that, if the advisor violates the rules, there is a cause of action under ERISA for breach of fiduciary duty (as opposed to the Best Interest Contract Exemption, where a private right of action is less certain).

If the advisor will earn more money if a participant’s benefits are moved to an IRA, that will be a prohibited transaction. As a result, the advisor will also need to comply with the condition of an exemption, most likely the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE). The transition version of BICE requires that an advisor adhere to the Impartial Conduct Standards. Of those standards, the most significant for this purpose is the best interest standard of care. Since the best interest standard of care and ERISA’s duties of prudence and loyalty are substantially similar, this article just refers to the best interest standard (even though both apply). The best interest standard requires that an advisor obtain the information that is relevant to making a prudent and loyal recommendation about a distribution. The Department of Labor has said that, at the least, that includes the services, investments, and fees and expenses in both the plan and the IRA. In addition, the best interest standard requires that the plan and IRA information be evaluated in light of the needs and circumstances of the participant.

The information about the services, investments, and fees and expenses in the plan is the most difficult to obtain. Fortunately, that information can be found in the participant’s plan disclosure statements. Additional important information is in the participant’s quarterly statements.

But, what if the participant can’t locate the information? Realistically, that should be a rare case, since plan sponsors are required to distribute the disclosures at the time of initial participation and annually thereafter.

But, what if the participant can’t find those disclosure materials? In a set of Frequently Asked Questions, the DOL responded that an advisor must make “diligent and prudent efforts” to obtain the plan information. If the participant can’t find those materials, then it seems likely that, at the least, a diligent and prudent effort would require that the advisor inform the participant that:

  1. The information is usually available on the plan’s website and they could obtain it from that source.
  2. The information is available from the plan sponsor upon request to the benefits personnel.

If neither of those options is successful, or if the participant is unwilling to take those steps, the advisor can use information from the Form 5500 or from industry averages. (Interestingly, 5500 data is not considered primary data for this purpose. It can only be used after a diligent and prudent effort has been made to obtain current plan data from the participant.)

Even where 5500 data or average plan data is used, there are additional considerations:

  • The advisor must provide “fair disclosure” of the significance of using the primary plan data, that is, current information about the plan from, e.g., the participant disclosure forms.
  • Plan averages must be based on “the type and size of plan at issue.” As a result, the advisor will need to know the type and size of the plan.
  • The advisor must explain the alternative data’s limitations.
  • The advisor must explain “how the financial institution determined that the benchmark or other data were reasonable.”

However, it would likely be a rare case that alternative data could be used. If a financial institution finds that its advisors are consistently using alternative data, that suggests that the advisors are not making “diligent and prudent efforts” to obtain actual plan data. The consequence of non-compliance is that the compensation paid from the rollover IRA is prohibited and cannot be retained by the financial institution or the adviser. There could also be an ERISA claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

An additional issue is that the “alternative data” may only include information about fees and expenses. In order to perform a best interest analysis, the advisor must also have information about a plan’s services and investments. For example, does the plan offer a brokerage account where, if the participant desired, the participant could have access to a wider range of investments? Another example is whether the plan offers discretionary investment management for participants’ accounts. If it does not, that may be a valuable service offered by the IRA; but, if it does, the expenses and the quality of those services in the plan and IRA should be compared.

As this article suggests, there are more issues than appear at first blush.

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 # #60


DOL, fiduciary

What the Tibble Decision Means to Advisers

This is my 60th article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s 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 June 9th, almost all advisers to retirement plans became fiduciaries—or, more accurately, those that were not already serving as fiduciary advisers became fiduciaries. While most of my Angles posts have been about the fiduciary rule and prohibited transaction exemptions, this article is about the impact of the latest Tibble decision (Tibble v. Edison Int’l, No. CV 07-5359 SVW (AGRx), 2017 WL 3523737 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2017)) on the development and delivery of fiduciary investment advice to 401(k) plans and ERISA-governed 403(b) plans.

As background, the Tibble case, through a series of decisions, held that it was a breach of fiduciary duty for a plan committee to select overly-expensive share classes of mutual funds. More specifically, the issue was whether the Tibble committee should have selected institutional share classes rather than retail share classes.

Viewed superficially, the decision could be interpreted to mean that plan fiduciaries must always select the cheapest share class. However, that is not correct. As a part of the decision, the attorneys for the plan committee argued that the retail share classes were justified since the revenue sharing paid by the mutual funds (and their affiliates) was used to pay for appropriate plan expenses (and, presumably, were enough to offset the additional cost of the retail share classes). The attorneys were justified in taking that position because other courts have held that, where mutual funds pay amounts to cover reasonable costs for operating a plan, the additional expense is reasonable. The Tibble court responded that the attorneys should have raised the argument at trial (which was years ago) and that the argument would not be considered at this point in the proceedings. As a result, the Tibble fiduciaries were left without a legal basis for justifying the increased expenses of the retail share classes.

With that background, plan committees, and their fiduciary advisers, have two alternatives when evaluating share classes. The first is to select the lowest-cost available share class, for example, an institutional share class. (I say “available share class” because not all share classes are generally available to smaller plans. Obviously, fiduciaries do not need to consider share classes that they can’t invest in. However, there is a fiduciary “duty to ask” about the available share classes.) The second is to select a higher-cost share class (for example, retail shares) where the increased expense can be justified by revenue sharing for operating the plan, for example, for compensation to the recordkeeper and adviser. Both alternatives are legally permissible.

However, there are several issues. Some of those are:

  • Who should decide whether to use higher cost share classes that pay revenue sharing for plan expenses?

Unfortunately, there isn’t any specific guidance on that question. However, in my experience, most advisers believe that plan fiduciaries should decide whether expenses are paid by revenue sharing, by the plan sponsor, or by charges to the participants. Accordingly, the first step for an adviser is to consult with the plan fiduciaries to determine whether the adviser should recommend the lowest-cost available share classes or whether the adviser should recommend share classes that pay reasonable amounts of revenue sharing to offset plan expenses. (Where the mutual funds pay more revenue sharing than is needed for reasonable plan expenses, the excess should be restored to the plan and the participants. For example, that might be done through an expense recapture account.)

  • What is the adviser’s responsibility?

When a fiduciary adviser recommends mutual funds to the plan fiduciaries (e.g., the plan committee), the adviser should recommend the appropriate share class for that plan. In other words, the adviser should evaluate the mutual fund share classes in light of the revenue sharing decisions made by the plan fiduciaries.

  • What are the adviser’s subsequent responsibilities?

The Tibble decision also held that the plan fiduciaries have an ongoing duty to monitor for these purposes. As a result, if a fiduciary adviser is providing monitoring advice, the share class issue needs to be re-visited at reasonable intervals. There’s no specific guidance on the appropriate timing of those reviews, but advisers need to consider the issue when developing and communicating their monitoring recommendations.

While both of the alternatives—that is, no revenue sharing and revenue sharing share classes—are available, the easier course of action would be to use the lowest-cost share class (and, if possible, non-revenue paying shares). Where some of the investments pay revenue sharing, the plan can be immunized by returning that revenue sharing to the participants who hold shares of those mutual funds (which is sometimes called “levelization” or “equalization”). In this case, the scope of monitoring is reduced and the plan is more transparent.

My point in writing this article is that Tibble impacts advisers as much as it impacts responsible plan fiduciaries. As a secondary, but important risk management matter, fiduciary advisers need to consider whether their discussions with plan committees about revenue sharing are adequate to enable the plan fiduciaries to fully understand the issues and to make informed decisions. The Tibble decision is an important reminder that, when mutual funds are recommended, an adviser needs to focus on the appropriate share class and needs direction about the use of funds that pay revenue sharing.

Forewarned is forearmed.

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 #59


DOL

What Plans and Arrangements Are Covered by the Fiduciary Rule

This is my 59th article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule and exemptions. These articles also cover the DOL’s FAQs interpreting the regulation and exemptions and related developments in the securities laws.

I continue to be asked about which “plans” are covered by the new DOL fiduciary rules, and which are not. It’s more complicated than you might think, in the sense that some of the covered plans may surprise you. Fortunately, three of our attorneys, Bruce Ashton, Elise Norcini and Josh Waldbeser have written an article that explains “what’s in and what’s out” in terms of the plans and other investment accounts that are covered by the fiduciary rule (and therefore by the prohibited transaction exemptions). A full reprint of their June 7, 2017 article follows:

“With the June 9 applicability date of the DOL Fiduciary Rule (Rule) just a few days away, there may still be confusion about exactly which plans and other arrangements are subject to the Rule. Some plans are not subject to the Rule, and some arrangements that are not actually IRAs are treated as if they were IRAs and therefore subject to the Rule. So, how are “plans” and “IRAs” defined?

The purpose of this Alert is simple – to describe which plans and arrangements are covered, and which are not. Below is a summary, followed by a brief discussion for those who want more explanation.

SUBJECT to the Rule – Treated as Plans

  • 401(k) plans – all types
  • Individual (“solo”) 401(k)s
  • 403(b) plans (other than governmental and non-electing church plans, and payroll deduction only 403(b)s)
  • Profit-sharing plans
  • ESOPs, including KSOPs
  • Money purchase plans (other than governmental and non-electing church plans)
  • Defined benefit plans (other than governmental and non-electing church plans)
  • SEPs, including SARSEPs
  • SIMPLEs
  • Keogh plans

SUBJECT to the Rule – Treated as IRAs

  • IRAs – all types
  • Payroll deduction only IRAs
  • Individual retirement annuities
  • Health savings accounts (HSAs)
  • Archer medical savings accounts (MSAs)
  • Coverdell education savings accounts (ESAs)

NOT SUBJECT to the Rule

  • Governmental plans – all types
  • Payroll deduction only 403(b)s
  • 457 plans – both 457(b) and 457(f)
  • Non-qualified equity compensation, such as stock options and restricted stock units
  • Non-electing church plans – all types
  • Non-qualified deferred compensation plans
  • Rabbi trusts
  • 529 plans
  • Uniform Gifts/Transfers to Minors Accounts

Covered Plans

Under the Rule, covered plans include (1) all “plans” as ERISA defines the term, and (2) all plans that are tax-qualified under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Many plans fall under both categories, but only one is required. To illustrate:

  • 401(k) plans (benefiting employees of an employer) are both ERISA plans and qualified plans. The same is true of profit-sharing plans, ESOPs, and most money purchase and defined benefit plans, unless they fall into one of the excluded categories from our chart (more on excluded categories later).
  • Individual 401(k) plans (benefiting a self-employed individual) are not ERISA plans, but are qualified.
  • SEPs and SIMPLEs are ERISA plans, even though they are IRA-based, and thus are not qualified plans. This is because both SEPs and SIMPLEs require employer contributions. 403(b) plans that are subject to ERISA are also covered – this includes 403(b) plans sponsored by private tax-exempt entities that are not churches.

Covered IRAs

Covered IRAs include all arrangements that are not “plans” under the above definition, but are treated as plans under the Code’s excise tax rules – this includes both “actual” IRAs and other similar arrangements like HSAs (an HSA may also be part of an ERISA plan, although this is the exception).

Also, under ERISA, employers are permitted to take payroll deductions from employees and remit them to IRAs, without being deemed to sponsor a plan. In these cases, the employer can have only limited involvement and cannot make employer contributions. These “payroll deduction only” IRAs are subject to the Rule as IRAs, but are not plans.

Excluded Plans and Arrangements

The Rule does not affect arrangements that are neither plans nor IRAs, as defined above.  Here are some specifics:

  • Governmental Plans. Governmental plans may be qualified under the Code but are not subject to the Code’s excise tax provisions, and are entirely excluded from ERISA. This means the Rule does not apply to investment advice given to governmental plans, though similar state laws may apply.
  • Non-Electing Church Plans. Churches and certain affiliated tax-exempt employers may sponsor “church plans.” Church plans are not subject to ERISA unless the plan sponsor affirmatively elects ERISA coverage. And, even though “non-electing” (non-ERISA) church plans may be qualified, like governmental plans they are not subject to the Code’s excise tax provisions. Thus, the Rule likewise has no application to non-electing church plans. (Though beyond the scope of this Alert, one way advisers can check on a plan’s “ERISA status” is to see whether the plan has filed Forms 5500 with the DOL. If so, it is subject to ERISA.)
  • Payroll Deduction Only 403(b)s. Tax-exempt employers that take payroll deductions from employees and remit them to 403(b) tax-deferred annuities, but otherwise have limited involvement and do not make employer contributions, are not treated as sponsoring a plan subject to ERISA. Also, 403(b) plans are not subject to the Code’s prohibited transaction excise taxes. Thus, payroll deduction only 403(b)s are not subject to the Rule at all.
  • Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plans. “Top hat” deferred compensation plans that cover only a select group of management or highly compensated employees are not treated as plans so long as they are “unfunded” (i.e., to the extent assets are set aside, they are in a “rabbi trust” or similar vehicle where the assets are subject to the employer’s creditors). These plans are not subject to ERISA or to the Code’s excise tax provisions, and the Rule does not affect them. The same is true for non-qualified equity-based compensation arrangements.
  • 457 Plans. 457(b) and 457(f) plans are non-qualified deferred compensation plans that can be sponsored by governmental and private tax-exempt employers. 457 plans of tax-exempt entities are excluded from ERISA as either “top hat” or non-electing church plans and are not subject to the Rule. “Non-top hat” 457 plans of a private sector employer could be subject to ERISA and the Rule, though this is rare.
  • Other Arrangements. Other arrangements such as 529 plans and UGMA/UTMA accounts are neither plans nor IRAs. They may, however, be similar to certain arrangements that are subject to the Rule. For example, 529 plans (excluded) and Coverdell ESAs (covered) are both used for college savings. Thus, advisors and financial institutions will need to be careful to differentiate between them.

Given this complexity, we understand why confusion may persist about what plans and arrangements are subject to the Rule. If you have any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact your Drinker Biddle attorney.”

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 #58


408(b)(2), DOL, fiduciary, General

Recommendations to Contribute to a Plan or IRA

This is my 58th article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule and exemptions. These articles also cover the DOL’s FAQs interpreting the regulation and exemptions and related developments in the securities laws.

In Angles article #56, I discussed the DOL’s position that recommendations of contributions to plans and IRAs were fiduciary advice. However, a week after that article was posted on my blog, the DOL reversed its position. The new guidance is found in the DOL’s “Conflict of Interest FAQs (408b-2 Disclosure Transition Period, Recommendations to Increase Contributions and Plan Participation).”

In the newly issued FAQs, the DOL posed the following question:

Q2. Plans and their service providers often encourage plan participants to make contributions to the plan at levels that maximize the value of employer matching contributions or to otherwise increase participants’ contributions or savings to meet objective financial retirement milestones, goals, or parameters based upon the participant’s age, time to retirement or other similar measures, without recommending any particular investment or investment strategy. Would it be fiduciary investment advice under the Fiduciary Rule to encourage additional savings or contributions to a plan or IRA in this manner?

The DOL then reversed its prior position by responding that those recommendations would not be fiduciary advice.

So, recordkeepers and advisers can unconditionally recommend contributions to plans and IRAs, right? Not so fast. A close reading of the guidance suggests otherwise. In other words, there may be traps for the unwary.

First, the recommended increase must be “objective.” For example, a non-fiduciary recommendation could be made to increase contributions to obtain the full benefit of an employer’s matching contributions. Also, a non-fiduciary recommendation for increased contributions could be “to meet objective financial retirement milestones, goals, or parameters based upon the participant’s age, time to retirement or other similar measures.” For example, a recommendation to increase contributions could be made based on calculations of the amounts needed for adequate retirement (for example, a 75% income replacement ratio in retirement). Another example is that, as a general rule of thumb, the combined employee-employer contributions should be 15% of pay in order to reasonably accumulate enough for a secure retirement.

Second, a recommendation to increase contributions is non-fiduciary advice where it is made “without recommending any particular investment or investment strategy.” So, for example, if the recommendation to increase contributions to a plan or IRA is made during a conversation that also includes a discussion of the investments, that could cause the recommendation to be fiduciary advice.

As a result, the “rules of the road” for recommending increased contributions to plans or IRAs, while avoiding fiduciary status, is to (1) make the recommendation based on an objective measurement, and (2) avoid a concurrent discussion of investments or investment strategies for the plan or IRA.

Even though there are traps in this guidance, the DOL’s position is a significant improvement.

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

 

 

Share