Category Archives: DOL

Extension to Compliance Date for 408(b)(2)


408(b)(2), broker-dealers, DOL, service providers

Last week, the Department of Labor (DOL) extended the compliance date for 408(b)(2) to April 1, 2012. While that only gives us another three months (from the current deadline of January 1), it is welcome relief. We have several observations about the extension:

  • Generally speaking, our service provider clients were on course to provide disclosures to their ERISA plans and to modify their intake procedures for new clients. However, they were feeling pressure to complete the work by the January 1 deadline.
  • The pressures primarily related to compensation disclosures. That is, our clients, by and large, have completed the work on the disclosures about services and status. However, the compensation disclosures are complex and often voluminous . . . particularly for broker-dealers and recordkeepers. At this point, the procedures for most of the easier compensation disclosures have been determined. However, work remains to be done on more complex compensation disclosures, for example, brokerage accounts and open architecture compensation disclosures by broker-dealers.
  • It is unlikely that there will be another extension. In its release, the DOL explained that the reason for this extension was that it had not released its final guidance under 408(b)(2) and, as a result, many service providers would need to make additional systems changes once the guidance is published. At this point, that will likely be October or possibly even November, depending on when the amended regulation is sent to the Office of Management and Budget.
  • It appears that the holdup is that the DOL is having difficulty resolving the new “summary and roadmap” disclosure requirements, which we understand is provided for in the amendment. The Department will need to either resolve the methodology for that disclosure or will need to eliminate the provision. We assume it will be the former.

The DOL thinks that the 3 month extension will be adequate because it will not take significant additional effort to incorporate the changes into the work already being done.  This suggests that the changes will either be relatively minor or possibly that some of the changes will make the regulation easier, rather than harder, to implement.

Share

Another in a series of discussions of interesting issues regarding disclosures under new DOL rules


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

The 408(b)(2) regulation requires that covered service providers disclose all “compensation.” On the face of it, that seems clear, but in practical application, it is more difficult. For example, must broker-dealers and others disclose all compensation, including revenue sharing? The answer is “yes.” Must all revenue sharing be disclosed? The answer is, “It depends on whether it is compensatory.”

While the regulation provides little guidance on what is “compensatory,” the DOL has explained its position in guidance about Schedule C to the 5500 Form:

“If a person providing services to the plan is provided a meal or other entertainment based on a general business relationship that includes both ERISA and non-ERISA business, is it required to be reported on Schedule C?

It depends.  The Schedule C instructions state that indirect compensation would not include compensation that would have been received had the service not been rendered to the plan or the transaction had not taken place with the plan and that cannot be reasonably allocated to the services(s) performed or transaction(s) with the plan.  However, if a person’s eligibility for receipt of a gift (such as meals, travel, or entertainment) is based, in whole or in part, on the value (e.g., assets under management, contract amounts, premiums) of contracts, policies or transactions (or classes thereof) placed with ERISA plans, the gift would constitute reportable indirect compensation for Schedule C purposes.  Where the eligibility for or amount of the gift is based on a book of business, including ERISA plan business, a pro rata share of the value of the gift should be treated as indirect compensation for the ERISA plans involved.”

Share

Interesting Issues under 408(b)(2)


408(b)(2), broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, registered investment advisers

This is the second in a series of short articles about disclosures to plan sponsors and participants under the new DOL regulations for disclosures to plans and to participants.

FACT: Many investment advisers (RIAs) and broker-dealers (BDs) use asset allocation models (AAMs) to help participants invest appropriately.

RULE: The DOL regulations require certain disclosures about “designated investment alternatives” (DIAs), including the performance history of the investments (to participants).

ISSUE: Are asset allocation models considered to be DIAs, which would invoke the disclosure requirements under both regulations?

ANSWER: Based on informal discussions with the DOL, it appears that they are leaning toward the conclusion that models are DIAs. If so, the disclosure requirements would include, among other things, reports from recordkeepers about the performance history of the models.  However, we believe that most recordkeepers have not been, and may not be able to (on a reasonable basis), calculate and report those returns. (Similar difficulties may exist for AAMs for other disclosures required by the regulations.) This could result in the inability to continue to use those models.

However, if the model is “managed” by a discretionary fiduciary, it appears that the DOL may conclude that is not a model, but instead an investment management service–which apparently would not be considered a DIA.

Share