Category Archives: fiduciary

The New Fiduciary Rule (51): The Loper Bright Decision and What it Means for DOL Regulations (1)


DOL, fiduciary, reg BI
, , , , ,

Key Takeaways

  • The lawsuits against the DOL’s new regulation on fiduciary advice and the related exemptions—and the likely appeals—will probably last for years.
  • A key issue in the lawsuits and appeals is the authority of the DOL to amend its existing regulation—the 5-part test—to cover one-time recommendations (subject to specified limits).
  • The DOL will argue that circumstances have change since 1975, for example, the enactment of Code section 401(k) and the post-ERISA growth in the importance of those plans. As a part of that, the DOL asserts that rollover recommendations should be fiduciary advice.
  • On the other hand, some financial industries, and particularly the insurance industry, will argue that a one-time recommendation associated with a rollover is a sales transaction that should not be held to a fiduciary standard.
  • A critical question for the courts is whether the DOL has authority to issue a new fiduciary recommendation that, among other things, says that a rollover recommendation, explicit or implicit, is fiduciary advice. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Loper Bright case establishes the standard for the courts to evaluate an agency’s authority.

I have been asked whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce et al. could affect the outcome of the litigation about the validity of the DOL’s fiduciary regulation and related exemptions. The answer is “yes”, but perhaps not in the way you might think. This article discusses the Loper Bright decision in the context of a review of the DOL’s fiduciary regulation.

To be fair, I am not an expert on constitutional law and I don’t want to create the impression that this is an authoritative article. Instead, my goal is to highlight the issues for consideration by the courts.

Continue reading The New Fiduciary Rule (51): The Loper Bright Decision and What it Means for DOL Regulations (1) →

Share

The New Fiduciary Rule (50): What is a Best Interest Process?


best interest, broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, investment adviser, IRA, reg BI, rollovers, SEC
, , ,

Key Takeaways

  • The DOL’s new regulation defining fiduciary advice to include one-time recommendations has been stayed, but advisers who make ongoing individualized recommendations to ERISA-governed retirement plans, participants in those plans, and IRA owners continue to be fiduciaries subject to fiduciary standards. Those standards—prudence and loyalty—can be called a best interest standard.
  • However, the SEC’s fiduciary standard for one-time recommendations by investment advisers continues to apply. The SEC position is most recently documented in its Commission Interpretation Regarding Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers. The SEC said that the investment adviser duties of care and loyalty—taken together–are a best interest standard.
  • The best interest standard for both broker-dealers and investment advisers has been further defined by the SEC Staff in its Bulletin entitled Standards of Conduct for Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers Account Recommendations for Retail Investors.
  • In addition, one-time recommendations of insurance products are regulated by state insurance departments and almost all of the states have adopted NAIC Model Regulation #275, “Suitability in Annuity Transactions”, either verbatim or in large part, for recommendations of annuities. The NAIC has referred to this as a best interest standard.
  • This post discusses the basic requirements for a best interest process for making recommendations to ERISA-governed retirement plans, participants in those plans, and IRA owners.
  • Note that Reg BI and the NAIC model rule do not apply to recommendations to retirement plans, but do apply to participants and IRA owners, including rollover recommendations and recommendations to transfer IRAs.

If you study the rules of the various standard-setters, a pattern emerges about their expectations for the process for developing a best interest recommendation. The DOL and SEC are consistent in that regard, while the NAIC model rule is less demanding, as explained later in this article.

Continue reading The New Fiduciary Rule (50): What is a Best Interest Process? →

Share

The New Fiduciary Rule (49): Recommendations to Transfer IRAs (NAIC)


best interest, broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, investment adviser, IRA, reg BI, SEC
, , , , ,

Key Takeaways

  • Two Texas Federal District Courts have “stayed” the effective dates of the DOL’s new fiduciary regulation and related exemptions, meaning that the private sector will not have to comply with those rules until the cases are resolved and if the guidance is vacated, those rules will never be effective.
  • As a result, one-time recommendations to plans, participants and IRA owners will not be fiduciary advice for purposes of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code.
  • However, one-time recommendations of securities (and insurance products that are securities) are regulated by the SEC for broker-dealers and investment advisers.
  • In addition, one-time recommendations of insurance products are regulated by state insurance departments and almost all of the states have adopted NAIC Model Regulation #275, either verbatim or in large part.
  • This post covers NAIC Model Regulation #275’s provisions for recommending exchanges of individual retirement annuities (also referred to as qualified annuities).

The stay of the effective dates of the amended fiduciary regulation and amended exemptions means that the “old” DOL fiduciary regulation (the 5-part test) and the existing exemptions continue in effect indefinitely.

My last post, Fiduciary Rule 48, discussed the DOL’s “old” and continuing definition of fiduciary advice—the 5-part test—and how it might apply to recommendations to transfer IRAs—individual retirement accounts and individual retirement annuities. The post before that, Fiduciary Rule 47, discussed SEC and SEC staff guidance on recommendations to transfer IRAs. This post is about the application of the conduct standards in NAIC Model Regulation #275 to the recommendation of annuities. The Model Regulation has been adopted by substantially all of the states, either verbatim or in large part.

Continue reading The New Fiduciary Rule (49): Recommendations to Transfer IRAs (NAIC) →

Share

The New Fiduciary Rule (48): Recommendations to Transfer IRAs (DOL)


2020-02, best interest, broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, investment adviser, IRA, reg BI, SEC
, , ,

Key Takeaways

    • Two Texas Federal District Courts have “stayed” the effective dates of the DOL’s new fiduciary regulation and related exemptions, meaning that the private sector will not have to comply with those rules until the cases are resolved and if the guidance is vacated, those rules will never be effective.
    • As a result, one-time recommendations to plans, participants and IRAs will not be fiduciary advice for purposes of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code.
    • However, one-time recommendations are regulated by the SEC for broker-dealers and investment advisers and by state insurance departments for insurance producers (primarily under the NAIC Model Regulation #275 which has been adopted by most states).
    • My last post discussed SEC and SEC staff guidance on recommendations to transfer IRAs.
    • This post covers likely DOL interpretations concerning recommendations to transfer or exchange of individual retirement accounts and individual retirement annuities.
    • The third post in this series will cover NAIC Model Regulation #275’s provisions for recommending exchanges of individual retirement annuities (also referred to as qualified annuities).

The stay of the effective dates of the amended fiduciary regulation and amended exemptions means that the “old” DOL fiduciary regulation (the 5-part test) and the existing exemptions continue in effect indefinitely.

My last post, Fiduciary Rule 47, discussed SEC and SEC staff guidance on recommendations to transfer IRAs. This post is about the DOL’s likely interpretation of how the existing 5-part fiduciary definition applies to IRA transfer recommendations.

Continue reading The New Fiduciary Rule (48): Recommendations to Transfer IRAs (DOL) →

Share

The New Fiduciary Rule (47): Recommendations to Transfer IRAs (SEC)


best interest, broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, investment adviser, IRA, reg BI, SEC
, , ,

Key Takeaways

  • Two Texas Federal District Courts have “stayed” the effective dates of the DOL’s new fiduciary regulation and related exemptions, meaning that the private sector will not have to comply with those rules until the cases are resolved.
  • As a result, one-time recommendations to plans, participants and IRAs will not be fiduciary advice for purposes of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. However, one-time recommendations are regulated by the SEC for broker-dealers and investment advisers and by state insurance departments for insurance producers (primarily under the NAIC Model Regulation #275 which has been adopted by most states).
  • This post discusses SEC and SEC staff guidance on recommendations to transfer IRAs. The next two will cover likely DOL interpretations and NAIC Model Regulation #275’s provisions concerning the transfer or exchange of individual retirement accounts and individual retirement annuities.

The stay of the effective dates of the amended fiduciary regulation and amended exemptions means that the “old” DOL fiduciary regulation (the 5-part test) and the existing exemptions continue in effect indefinitely. As a result, it is unlikely that one-time plan-to-IRA rollover recommendations will be fiduciary recommendations under ERISA or the Internal Revenue Code. However, the standards of conduct for recommendations to transfer IRAs (that is, either individual retirement accounts or individual retirement annuities) are also governed by other regulators (and may still be subject to the DOL’s “old” fiduciary definition). This article and the next two will discuss conduct standards for IRA (including qualified annuities) of  the SEC, NAIC and DOL.

The SEC’s guidance is found in Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI) for broker-dealers and the Commission Interpretation Regarding Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers (IA Interpretation). While Reg BI imposes a “best interest” standard and the IA Interpretation concerns  a fiduciary standard, the SEC staff, in its SEC Staff Bulletin: Standards of Conduct for Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers Account Recommendations for Retail Investors explained: Although the specific application of Reg BI and the IA fiduciary standard may differ in some respects and be triggered at different times, in the staff’s view, they generally yield substantially similar results in terms of the ultimate responsibilities owed to retail investors. [The emphasis is mine.]

Continue reading The New Fiduciary Rule (47): Recommendations to Transfer IRAs (SEC) →

Share

The New Fiduciary Rule (44): The Regulation and Exemptions are Stayed (4)—What Remains?


2020-02, best interest, broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, investment adviser, IRA, prohibited transaction, rollovers, SEC
, , , ,

Key Takeaways

  • Shortly after the DOL’s new regulation defining fiduciary advice and amended Prohibited Transaction Exemptions 2020-02 and 84-24 were finalized, two lawsuits were filed in Federal District Courts in Texas.
  • The lawsuits sought to “vacate,” or overturn, the regulation and exemptions as being beyond the authority of the DOL. In addition, the plaintiffs requested that the courts “stay” the effective dates of the regulation and exemptions pending the outcome of the lawsuits.
  • Both courts have “stayed” the effective dates, meaning that the private sector will not have to comply with those rules until the cases are resolved.
  • The next step will be for those courts to determine if the regulation and exemptions are valid or should be vacated.
  • However, there are still compliance issues related to one-time rollover recommendations.

The DOL’s fiduciary regulation was scheduled to become effective this September 23. The exemptions were scheduled to become partially effective this September 23 and fully effective September 23, 2025.

Two Federal district courts—one in the Eastern District of Texas and the other in the Northern District—have stayed the effective dates. That means that the new rules will not be effective until the courts have decided on the validity of the regulation and exemptions and, most likely, until the appeals are exhausted one way or the other.

Continue reading The New Fiduciary Rule (44): The Regulation and Exemptions are Stayed (4)—What Remains? →

Share

The New Fiduciary Rule (43): The Regulation and Exemptions are Stayed (3)—What Remains?


2020-02, broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, investment adviser, prohibited transaction, rollovers, SEC
, , ,

Key Takeaways

  • Shortly after the DOL’s new regulation defining fiduciary advice and amended Prohibited Transaction Exemptions 2020-02 and 84-24 were finalized, two lawsuits were filed in Federal District Courts in Texas.
  • The lawsuits sought to “vacate,” or overturn, the regulation and exemptions as being beyond the authority of the DOL. In addition, the plaintiffs requested that the courts “stay” the effective dates of the regulation and exemptions pending the outcome of the lawsuits.
  • Both courts have “stayed” the effective dates, meaning that the private sector will not have to comply with those rules until the cases are resolved.
  • The next step will be for those courts to determine if the regulation and exemptions are valid or should be vacated.
  • However, there are still compliance issues related to one-time rollover recommendations.

The DOL’s fiduciary regulation was scheduled to become effective this September 23. The exemptions were scheduled to become partially effective this September 23 and fully effective September 23, 2025.

Two Federal district courts—one in the Eastern District of Texas and the other in the Northern District—have stayed the effective dates. That means that the new rules will not be effective until the courts have decided on the validity of the regulation and exemptions and, most likely, until the appeals are exhausted one way or the other.

As a result, the current fiduciary regulation, with its 5-part test, will continue in effect pending the final resolution of the lawsuits. In the same vein, the current PTEs 84-24 and 2020-02 will continue in effect until a final decision is reached on the validity of the amended PTEs.

Continue reading The New Fiduciary Rule (43): The Regulation and Exemptions are Stayed (3)—What Remains? →

Share

The New Fiduciary Rule (42):The Regulation and Exemptions are Stayed (2)—What Remains?


2020-02, 84-24, broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, investment adviser, prohibited transaction, rollovers, SEC
, , , , , ,

Key Takeaways

  • Shortly after the DOL’s new regulation defining fiduciary advice and amended Prohibited Transaction Exemptions 2020-02 and 84-24 were finalized, two lawsuits were filed in Federal District Courts in Texas.
  • The lawsuits sought to “vacate”, or overturn, the regulation and exemptions as being beyond the authority of the DOL. In addition, the plaintiffs requested that the courts “stay” the effective dates of the regulation and exemptions pending the outcome of the lawsuits.
  • In the past two weeks, both courts have agreed to stay the effective dates, pending resolution of the cases.
  • The next step will be for those courts to determine if the regulation and exemptions are valid or should be vacated.
  • However, there are still compliance issues.

The DOL’s fiduciary regulation was scheduled to become effective this September 23. The exemptions were scheduled to become partially effective this September 23 and fully effective September 23, 2025.

Two Federal district courts—one in the Eastern District of Texas and the other in the Northern District—have stayed the effective dates. That means that the new rules will not be effective until the courts have decided the validity of the regulation and exemptions and, most likely, until the appeals are exhausted one way or the other.

As a result, the current fiduciary regulation, with its 5-part test, will continue in effect pending the final resolution of the lawsuits. In the same vein, the current PTEs 84-24 and 2020-02 will continue in effect until a final decision is reached on the validity of the amended PTEs.

Continue reading The New Fiduciary Rule (42):The Regulation and Exemptions are Stayed (2)—What Remains? →

Share

The New Fiduciary Rule (41):The Regulation and Exemptions are Stayed


2020-02, 84-24, broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, investment adviser, prohibited transaction, rollovers
, , ,

Key Takeaways

  • Shortly after the DOL’s new regulation defining fiduciary advice and Amended Prohibited Transaction Exemptions 2020-02 and 84-24 were finalized, two lawsuits were filed in Federal District Courts in Texas.
  • The lawsuits sought to “vacate”, or overturn, the regulation and exemptions as being beyond the authority of the DOL. In addition, the plaintiffs requested that the courts “stay” the effective dates of the regulation and exemptions pending the outcome of the lawsuits.
  • In the past two weeks, both courts have agreed to stay the effective dates, pending resolution of the cases.

The DOL’s fiduciary regulation was scheduled to become effective this September 23. The exemptions were scheduled to become partially effective this September 23 and fully effective September 23, 2025.

The two courts—one in the Eastern District of Texas and the other in the Northern District—have stayed the effective dates. That means that the new rules will not be effective until the courts have decided the validity of the regulation and exemptions and, most likely, until the appeals are exhausted one way or the other.

Continue reading The New Fiduciary Rule (41):The Regulation and Exemptions are Stayed →

Share

The New Fiduciary Rule (40): Rollovers and the Insurance License Issue


2020-02, 84-24, DOL, fiduciary, prohibited transaction, rollovers
, , , , , ,

Key Takeaways

  • The DOL’s fiduciary regulation will be effective on September 23 of this year. As a result, beginning on September 23 one-time recommendations to retirement investors can be fiduciary advice and, where the advice is conflicted, the protection afforded by a prohibited transaction exemption will be needed.
  • A “one-time” rollover recommendation is a fiduciary act under the new rules.
  • The definition of investment advice in the regulation includes recommendations about “securities or other investment properly” which includes life insurance with an investment component and annuities.
  • Under both PTE 84-24 and PTE 2020-02, a compliant rollover recommendation generally requires the consideration of the investments, services and expenses in the retirement plan.
  • As a result, the question has been raised about whether an insurance-licensed only insurance agent can legally “consider” a plan’s investments, as is required by the PTEs.

The Department of Labor’s final regulation defining fiduciary status for investment advice to retirement investors will be effective this September 23. Where a fiduciary recommendation results in additional compensation for the fiduciary, that conflicted compensation is prohibited under ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, or both. As a result, the relief provided by an exemption from the prohibited transaction rules will be needed.

Parts of the two applicable exemptions, Prohibited Transaction Exemptions (PTEs) 2020-02 and 84-24 will also be effective on September 23, 2024, but other parts will not be effective until a year later—September 23, 2025. The split effective dates for the PTEs are as follows. The Impartial Conduct Standards and the Fiduciary Acknowledgment disclosure are effective September 23, 2024—this year. The remaining conditions in the PTEs are effective on September 23, 2025. That includes all of the remaining disclosures, the policies and procedures, and the annual retrospective review.

Both PTEs require that, to obtain their relief, the Care Obligation—which is part of the Impartial Conduct Standards– must be satisfied. The requirements for satisfying the Care Obligation for recommendations to rollover from an ERISA retirement plan to an IRA (individual retirement account or individual retirement annuity) are virtually identical. Here’s what PTE 84-24 says in the context of independent insurance agents (called “independent producers” by the DOL):

Rollover disclosure. Before engaging in or recommending that a Retirement Investor engage in a rollover from a Plan that is covered by Title I of ERISA or making a recommendation to a Plan participant or beneficiary as to the post-rollover investment of assets currently held in a Plan that is covered by Title I of ERISA, the Independent Producer must consider and document the bases for its recommendation to engage in the rollover, and must provide that documentation to both the Retirement Investor and to the Insurer. Relevant factors to consider must include to the extent applicable, but in any event are not limited to: 

  1. the alternatives to a rollover, including leaving the money in the Plan, if applicable; 
  2. the fees and expenses associated with the Plan and the recommended investment; 
  3. whether an employer or other party pays for some or all of the Plan’s administrative expenses; and 
  4. the different levels of fiduciary protection, services, and investments available. (The emphasis is mine.)

The reference to considering the available investments has caused some observers to question whether an agent who is only licensed to sell non-securities insurance products can legally perform that task. That question was asked of the DOL in comments to the proposed exemption, and answered by the DOL in the preamble to the final PTE:

Another commenter characterized the condition as potentially requiring Independent Producers to violate the law, because as described by the commenter Federal securities laws prohibit individuals from recommending or providing detailed information or advice about securities unless they have a securities license. Thus, according to the commenter, Independent Producers who do not have a securities license (as most do not) would be forced to either break the law to comply with this condition or undertake the expense and burden of obtaining the appropriate securities licenses.

The Department of Labor responded in the preamble and disagreed with the commenter’s description of what was required for the “consideration:”

The Department disagrees with this characterization of the exemption condition. While Independent Producers are required to consider alternatives to the rollover from the Title I Plan into an annuity, they are not required to recommend or provide detailed information or advice about securities. Nothing in the exemption requires or suggests that Independent Producers are obligated to make advice recommendations as to investment products they are not qualified or legally permitted to recommend. The Department notes that nothing in the exemption or the Impartial Conduct Standards prohibits investment advice by “insurance-only” agents or requires such insurance specialists to render advice with respect to other categories of assets outside their specialty or expertise. There may be circumstances when the best advice an Independent Producer can give an investor is to bring in or work with another Investment Professional who can make a recommendation that is consistent with the Impartial Conduct Standards. A rollover recommendation should not be based solely on the Retirement Investor’s existing investment allocation without any consideration of other investment options in the Retirement Investor’s Title I Plan. The Independent Producer must carefully consider the options available to the investor, including options other than the Retirement Investor’s existing Plan investments, before recommending that the participant roll assets out of the Title I Plan. (The emphasis is mine.)

I don’t claim to have expertise on securities licensing/registration requirements or limits. However, this does raise the issue of how far can an agent go in the consideration of the securities (e.g., mutual funds) in a retirement plan generally and in a participant’s account specifically. If these rules are upheld by the courts, insurance companies and intermediaries (perhaps with additional guidance from the DOL) will need to educate independent producers on how to “consider” “the different… investments available” to the participant.

In one sense, there could be general considerations, such as liquidity, volatility, possible growth, and so on, that I would imagine could be done without a securities license. That could then be compared to the guaranteed income, and other features, of an annuity and a recommendation in the best interest of the participant could be made based on his or her needs and circumstances. The key is that the recommendation be personalized to the particular participant and the participant’s circumstances.

One part of the preamble language has been difficult for practitioners to interpret. It is the language: “There may be circumstances when the best advice an Independent Producer can give an investor is to bring in or work with another Investment Professional who can make a recommendation that is consistent with the Impartial Conduct Standards.” Some observers are concerned that the language might mean that an insurance producer should bring in a securities-licensed professional to help with the analysis. If it does mean that, it may be unrealistic. On the other hand, if it instead suggests that a best interest recommendation could, in some cases, be that part of the rollover could prudently be invested in an annuity and the remaining part could prudently be invested in a securities-based IRA (e.g., to provide some guaranteed income and some liquidity) that could be viewed as more possible.

Concluding Thoughts

As I advise clients, including insurance companies, on compliance with the new rules, and as the rules are applied to real world scenarios, there are questions without answers…or, perhaps better put, there are questions that the rules don’t directly address and therefore reasonable answers have to be developed. One example of that is the process for recommending guaranteed income products (e.g., individual retirement annuities) where the source of funds is in mutual funds and collective investment trusts in retirement plans. Hopefully, the DOL will provide helpful guidance in the future. However, that is unlikely until the current litigation against the rules is resolved.

Share