Based on the DOL guidance in FAB 2012-02, many advisers have concluded that asset allocation models (AAMs) can be offered to plans without the need to treat them as designated investment alternatives (DIAs) and, therefore, without the need to report the performance history, expense ratios, etc., of the AAMs.
Unfortunately, that is an oversimplification and may inadvertently lead to problems under both the 408(b)(2) and 404a-5 regulations. Continue reading Asset Allocation Models
As we get closer to the July 1, 2012 deadline for 408(b)(2) disclosures, more issues emerge concerning the adequacy of disclosures. Of particular concern is the requirement that the disclosures include both monetary and non-monetary compensation. For example, where a mutual fund family or insurance company subsidizes broker-dealer or RIA conferences for plan sponsors or advisers, there is at least an issue of whether those subsidies should be disclosed to the plan sponsor clients of those RIAs or broker-dealers. Another example is where a mutual fund complex or insurance company pays for advisers to attend conferences.
As you know, I have done a series of short articles about overlooked and misunderstood issues for 408(b)(2) compliance. This article continues that series.
At first blush, it seems like 2012 is the year of plan disclosures and participant disclosures. The 408(b)(2) regulation is effective July 1, 2012, and the 404a-5 regulation follows two months later. However, there is more DOL activity than initially meets the eye.
The DOL recently issued its final regulation on conflicted investment advice to participants. Unfortunately, the scope of the regulation is not well understood. For example, if an adviser does not have any conflicts (that is, if the adviser cannot vary its revenue or that of any affiliates based on the recommended investments), then the adviser does not need to comply with the new regulation. For example, the adviser would not need to comply with the certification or audit requirements. However, if the adviser has financial conflicts of interest and can affect its own revenues (or those of an affiliate), then the adviser must comply with those requirements in order to give fiduciary investment advice to participants.
Together with other attorneys from my law firm, I have written a bulletin on the subject. If you are interested in having further information, please click on the linke below to see a copy of the bulletin:
Two other Drinker Biddle attorneys (Bruce Ashton and Joan Neri) and I just released a bulletin discussing what changes in the 408(b)(2) final regulation mean to registered investment advisers (RIAs). You can obtain a copy of the bulletin at:
http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/resources/publications/2012/the-final-408b2-regulation-impact-on-rias
While the final regulation clarifies a number of issues and grants an extension of time to comply, it also raises two issues which may come as a surprise to RIAs. The first is that asset allocation models (AAMs) may be treated as designated investment alternatives (DIAs), resulting in a number of disclosure requirements (both under 408(b)(2) and the participant disclosure regulation). The second is that the DOL has interpreted “indirect compensation” very broadly in a way that could require additional disclosures from RIAs. That would apply, for example, where investment providers (like mutual funds) or service providers (like independent recordkeepers or bundled providers) provide financial assistance to RIAs. Once specific example would be a conference put on by an RIA for its plan sponsor clients. Another example would be where an investment provider or a service provider offers “free” services to RIAs for their plan sponsor clients. Both of those issues, and others, are discussed in some detail in the bulletin.
The DOL issued the final 408(b)(2) regulation on February 2, 2012.
Key points are:
Bruce Ashton and I have drafted a more detailed Alert for our law firm, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. That Alert is located at:
http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/resources/publications/2012/finally-the-final-408b2-regulation
I have recently written an article on “Capturing Rollovers.” The article discusses the DOL’s guidance on the issues involved in capturing rollovers, both by broker-dealers and RIAs. The article analyzed that guidance and discussed programs for RIAs and broker-dealers. You can download a PDF of the article by clicking on the link below:
http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/files/ftpupload/pdf/CapturingRollovers.pdf
This is another in a series of articles about interesting issues related to plan and participant disclosures.
The DOL disclosure regulations for both plan sponsor and participant disclosures are not clear about the treatment of brokerage accounts for a plan (for example, a small profit sharing plan) or for a participant-directed plan (for example, a self-directed brokerage account in a 401(k) plan).
For participant disclosures, the DOL has given informal guidance about the disclosures that must be made to participants . . . and those disclosures are minimal.
However, where a 401(k) plan consists exclusively of individual brokerage accounts, there are practical issues about how to comply with the 404a-5 disclosures generally. Since the brokerage accounts are not “designated investment options,” there are only minimal disclosures which must be made concerning the brokerage accounts. However, where only brokerage accounts are offered, the structure will not ordinarily include a recordkeeper. As a result, the plan sponsor (perhaps in conjunction with a compliance-only third party administrator) must make the non-investment participant disclosures, which includes the general disclosures, the administrative expense disclosures, and the individual expense disclosures – as well as the quarterly statements.
Based on our discussions with broker-dealers, there is a lack of awareness of the requirements for the non-investment disclosures under the 404a-5 participant disclosure regulation. As a result, there will be compliance issues in this scenario.
As you may know, the Department of Labor recently announced that it was going to re-propose its proposed fiduciary investment advice regulation. As background, that proposal was intended to modify the Department’s current regulation that defines fiduciary investment advice . . . and also intended to expand the definition, so that more people would be viewed as providing fiduciary investment advice under ERISA. However, the proposed regulations had a number of serious problems and, as a result, the financial services industry (and particularly broker-dealers and insurance companies), strenuously objected to the proposed changes. Because of those objections, as well as some congressional support of the objections, the DOL has agreed to re-propose the regulation.
If you are interested in understanding the problems with the initial proposal, I have provided a downloadable copy of my current letter to the Department of Labor. The letter includes a discussion of the changes, as well as some of the problems.
