Take a quick dive into the exciting world of ERISA with Faegre Drinker benefits and executive compensation attorneys Fred Reish and Brad Campbell. In this quick-hit series of updates, Fred and Brad offer a high-level view of current trends and recent ERISA developments. See the newest episode, The New Fiduciary Proposal: An Overview of PTE 84-24 and its Impact, on the Spotlight on Benefits blog.
Category Archives: fiduciary
The New Fiduciary Rule (1): An Overview
The US Department of Labor has released its package of proposed changes to the regulation defining fiduciary advice and to the exemptions for conflicts and compensation for investment advice to plans, participants (including rollovers), and IRAs.
Key Takeaways
- One time investment recommendations to qualified and ERISA retirement plans and their participants, and to IRA owners, can be fiduciary advice. Plans, participants and IRA owners are referred to as “retirement investors”.
- A rollover recommendation is one-time advice that will result in fiduciary status.
- Fiduciary recommendations that result in compensation to a securities adviser (that is, to an investment adviser or broker-dealer) or to an insurance agent will be prohibited conflicts of interest, necessitating satisfaction of the conditions in a prohibited transaction exemption.
This blog post is an overview of the new proposals. Follow up posts will go into detail on each of the proposals.
The proposed fiduciary regulation—called the “Retirement Security Rule”–defines fiduciary advice as follows:
The DOL’s Regulatory Agenda and a New Fiduciary Rule
UPDATE: On August 8, I posted this blog article in contemplation of the DOL sending a new fiduciary proposal package to the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) in the White House. One month later, to the day, the receipt of the DOL’s proposed fiduciary rule and prohibited transactions was posted on the OMB’s website. In reviewing my blog article, I think it was spot on in predicting key elements of the fiduciary rule and the exemptions. However, that is still based on my crystal ball, since the changes new proposals won’t be known until they are vetted by the OMB and published in the Federal Register—probably 45 to 60 days from now. As this article suggests, the fiduciary proposal will likely say that rollover recommendations are fiduciary advice and that rollover recommendations to annuities will be subject to more stringent standards.
Key Takeaways
- The anticipated DOL proposed fiduciary regulation could be sent to the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) in a matter of weeks.
- The proposal will likely say that a rollover recommendation to a participant in an ERISA governed retirement plan is a fiduciary act.
- The DOL will also likely propose amendments to prohibited transaction exemptions (PTEs), including to PTE 84-24, the exemption used for fiduciary rollover recommendations into individual annuity contracts.
The DOL has not appealed the decision in the Florida Federal District Court that vacated its fiduciary “re-interpretation.” That re-interpretation, in effect, said that ongoing investment advice to a rollover IRA could be connected to the rollover recommendation to a participant such that the “regular basis” prong of the 5-part fiduciary test would be satisfied. For context, the DOL had previously said that, if a person was not already a fiduciary to a plan, a recommendation to a participant to rollover his or her benefits was a standalone recommendation and therefore did not satisfy the regular basis prong of the 5-part test.
The re-interpretation tried to connect the recommendation to the plan (that is, for the participant to rollover to an IRA) to subsequent investment advice to the rollover IRA and, in that way, to conclude that the rollover recommendation was part of a regular basis advice arrangement. However, the Court held that the “regular basis” test is applied separately to the plan and the IRA and advice to the two could not be connected.
Continue reading The DOL’s Regulatory Agenda and a New Fiduciary Rule
The SECURE Act 2.0: The Most Impactful Provisions #14 — Automatic Portability for IRA Force-outs
Key Takeaways
- Current law permits plans to force out distributions of accounts with less than $5,000 in benefits if a departed employee does not affirmatively elect to receive his or her benefits. (That amount is increasing to $7,000 in 2024.)
- The “force-out” amounts must be rolled over into an IRA if the account balance is at least $1,000.
- SECURE 2.0 permits the provider of the IRAs that receive the forced-out amounts to continuously reach out to recordkeepers to determine if the IRA owner has begun participating in a plan that is recordkept by a participating recordkeeper and, if so, to transfer the IRA amounts to the IRA owner’s account in the new plan.
- The provider of the IRAs must act as a fiduciary for that purpose and therefore must act in the best interest of the IRA owner.
- The provider can collect a reasonable fee from the force-out IRA for those services and the fee will not be considered a prohibited transaction.
The President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which included SECURE Act 2.0, on December 29, 2022.
SECURE Act 2.0 has over 90 provisions, some major and some minor; some mandatory and some optional; some retroactively effective and some that won’t be effective for years to come. One difference between SECURE Act 2.0 and previous retirement plan laws is that many of 2.0’s provisions are optional . . . that is, plan sponsors are not required to adopt the provisions, but can adopt them if they decide that the change will help their plans and participants. This series discusses the provisions that are likely to be the most impactful, either as options or as required changes.
This article is about an effort by Congress to protect the benefits of former employees with small account balances who have been forced out of plans into default rollover IRAs.
Rollovers, Regulation, Litigation: Where Are We and What’s Next?
Key Takeaways
- The recent decisions on the DOL’s interpretation of fiduciary status are significant but limited in scope. Fiduciary status for plan-to-IRA rollover recommendations, standing alone, has been vacated. But other important transactions, such as IRA transfers, have not.
- Also, where an advisor is a fiduciary to a plan or participant, and then recommends a rollover, the DOL will likely take the position that the rollover recommendation is a fiduciary act, necessitating the use of PTE 2020-02.
- In addition, the SEC’s guidance on rollover recommendations by investment advisers and broker-dealers is closely aligned with the DOL’s, particularly on the best interest process, and the relevant plan information, needed to engage in a best interest process.
Let’s take a break from my SECURE 2.0 series of articles to discuss what is going on with the DOL’s fiduciary rule.
The Past
As background, in the preamble to Prohibited Transaction Exemption (PTE) 2020-02, the DOL re-interpreted the 5-part test in its regulation defining fiduciary status for nondiscretionary investment advice. The most significant part of the reinterpretation was the DOL position that recommendations to participants to take distributions from their retirement plans and to rollover to IRAs could be connected to subsequent investment advice to the rollover IRAs to satisfy the “regular basis” prong of the 5-part test.
Under that theory most rollover recommendations would be fiduciary recommendations, which in turn would require satisfaction of the conditions in PTE 2020-02 to obtain relief from the resulting prohibited transaction. (The prohibited transaction is the receipt of compensation from the rollover IRA.) Among other things, the PTE requires a best interest process that includes comparison of the investments, expenses and services in the plan and the IRA, in light of the needs and circumstances of the participant.
Continue reading Rollovers, Regulation, Litigation: Where Are We and What’s Next?
The DOL’s Fiduciary Interpretation and the Florida Court Decision
In 2020, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued its Prohibited Transaction Exemption (PTE) 2020-02 to provide an exemption to most prohibited transactions resulting from nondiscretionary fiduciary advice to retirement plans governed by either ERISA or the Internal Revenue Code, or both, as well as nondiscretionary fiduciary advice to IRAs.
The DOL’s Fiduciary Interpretation and Prohibited Transaction Exemption
In the preamble to the PTE, the DOL expanded its view of the nature of the advice that would result in fiduciary status. One of those expanded interpretations was that, in a rollover context, IRAs and plans should be viewed as having a continuous connection because they are retirement assets on a continuum. More specifically, the DOL said that, if an advisor has been providing investment advice on a regular basis to an IRA and then recommends that the IRA owner make a rollover to the IRA, the plan-to-IRA rollover recommendation would be connected to the advice to the IRA that had been provided on a regular basis and, as a result, the advisor would be a fiduciary for the rollover recommendation. Similarly, if an advisor made a plan-to-IRA rollover recommendation and then provided investment advice to the rollover IRA on a regular basis, the advisor would be a fiduciary for the rollover recommendation because the rollover recommendation and the advice to the rollover IRA would be on a continuum. (For the purposes of this article, “advisor” includes broker-dealers and investment advisers, and their representatives, and insurance agents.)
Continue reading The DOL’s Fiduciary Interpretation and the Florida Court Decision
Investment Advisers: The Independent Duties of Care and Loyalty
Key Takeaways
- Recent SEC guidance has clarified that the investment adviser duties of care and loyalty are separate, independent duties.
- A reasonable interpretation of the SEC and Staff guidance is that the satisfaction of one will not satisfy the other–both must be individually satisfied.
- As a result, the SEC appears to be saying that, even if a conflict is disclosed, that does not, in and of itself, satisfy the duty of care. For example, if an adviser discloses that the adviser will receive compensation related to an investment decision or recommendation, e.g., revenue sharing, but the revenue sharing share class of a mutual fund is more expensive for the investor, the duty of care may be violated even though the duty of loyalty was satisfied.
There appear to be conflicting views of whether an investment adviser’s duty of care can be satisfied by disclosures that satisfy the duty of loyalty. That is, if an adviser discloses the receipt of additional compensation from investments or service providers, can the adviser then recommend or select that investment even though it may be more expensive for the client? In recent years, the SEC has issued guidance that seems to answer that question…and the answer appears to be “no.” Based on its 2019 Commission Interpretation Regarding Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers, and the two 2022 SEC Staff Bulletins, the position of the SEC (and of the Staff) is that the duties of care and loyalty (together referred to as the duty to act in the best interest of investors) are separate and distinct, and that they each must be independently satisfied.
Continue reading Investment Advisers: The Independent Duties of Care and Loyalty
Best Interest Standard of Care for Advisors #100: Liabilities and Opportunities
Key Takeaways
The DOL’s expanded definition of fiduciary advice is explained in the preamble to PTE 2020-02.
When conflicted fiduciary advice is given to retirement investors, that is, retirement plans, participants (including rollovers), and IRA owners (including transfers of IRAs), it results in prohibited transactions under the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA. The prohibited transaction is the compensation earned as a result of the fiduciary recommendation, e.g., the fees or commissions from a rollover IRA.
The PTE provides relief for the prohibitions resulting from conflicted non-discretionary recommendations. However, the relief is conditional, that is, it is only available if all of the PTE’s conditions are satisfied.
The compliance deadline was February 1, 2021 for most of the PTE’s conditions and July 1 for the one remaining condition–the requirement to provide retirement investors in writing with the “specific reasons” why a rollover recommendation is in their best interest.
As a result, the documentation and processes for compliance with PTE 2020-02’s conditions should now be completed. So, this is a good time to consider the liability issues and the opportunities created by the PTE.
Background
The DOL’s prohibited transaction exemption (PTE) 2020-02, Improving Investment Advice for Workers & Retirees, allows investment advisers, broker-dealers, banks, and insurance companies (“financial institutions”), and their representatives (“investment professionals”) to receive conflicted compensation resulting from non-discretionary fiduciary investment advice to ERISA retirement plans, participants (including rollover recommendations), and IRA owners (all of whom are referred to as “retirement investors”). In addition, in the preamble to the PTE the DOL announced an expanded definition of fiduciary advice, meaning that many more financial institutions and investment professionals are fiduciaries for their recommendations to retirement investors and, therefore, will need the protection provided by the exemption.
Since a significantly increased number of recommendations to retirement investors will be fiduciary recommendations under the expanded fiduciary interpretation, and since many, if not most, of those recommendations will involve conflicts of interest, financial institutions and investment professionals will need to satisfy the “conditions” (or requirements) in the PTE. The 4 categories of those conditions are: (1) the Impartial Conduct Standards (including the best interest standard of care); (2) disclosures (including the “specific reasons”), (3) policies and procedures (include mitigation of conflicts), and (4) the annual retrospective review and report.
Continue reading Best Interest Standard of Care for Advisors #100: Liabilities and Opportunities
Best Interest Standard of Care for Advisors #99: The PTE 2020-02 Requirement for An Annual Retrospective Review
Key Takeaways
The DOL’s expanded definition of fiduciary advice is explained in the preamble to PTE 2020-02.
When conflicted fiduciary advice is given to retirement investors (that is, retirement plans, participants (including rollovers), and IRA owners (including transfers of IRAs), it results in prohibited transactions under the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA. The PTE provides relief for conflicted non-discretionary recommendations. However, the relief is only available if all of the PTE’s conditions are satisfied.
While much attention has been given to the conduct, disclosure and policies “conditions” for obtaining the relief provided by PTE 2020-02, there hasn’t been much discussion of the PTE’s “condition” that requires an annual retrospective review and report. This article discusses that requirement.
Background
The DOL’s prohibited transaction exemption (PTE) 2020-02 (Improving Investment Advice for Workers & Retirees), allows investment advisers, broker-dealers, banks, and insurance companies (“financial institutions”), and their representatives (“investment professionals”), to receive conflicted compensation resulting from non-discretionary fiduciary investment advice to ERISA retirement plans, participants (including rollover recommendations), and IRA owners (all of whom are referred to as “retirement investors”). In addition, in the preamble to the PTE the DOL announced an expanded definition of fiduciary advice, meaning that many more financial institutions and investment professionals are fiduciaries for their recommendations to retirement investors and, therefore, will need the protection provided by the exemption.
For example, a rollover recommendation will ordinarily be nondiscretionary fiduciary advice and result in a financial conflict of interest (i.e., the compensation earned from the rollover IRA) that is a prohibited transaction under both ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. But, since the recommendation is nondiscretionary, PTE 2020-02 provides relief, but only if all of its conditions are met.
Best Interest Standard of Care for Advisors #97: The SEC Requirements for Rollover Recommendations
Key Takeaways
The DOL’s expanded definition of fiduciary advice is described in the preamble to PTE 2020-02.
When conflicted fiduciary advice is given to retirement investors (that is, retirement plans, participants (including rollovers), and IRA owners), it results in prohibited transactions under the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA. But the PTE provides relief for conflicted non-discretionary recommendations.
While most of the focus of the literature (and of these blog articles) about rollover recommendations has been on the DOL’s fiduciary interpretation and PTE 2020-02, the SEC has, for the most part, harmonized its best interest/fiduciary requirements for rollover recommendations with those of the DOL.
This article discusses the two-part harmony between the agencies, and the areas of disharmony.
Background
The DOL’s prohibited transaction exemption (PTE) 2020-02 (Improving Investment Advice for Workers & Retirees), allows investment advisers, broker-dealers, banks, and insurance companies (“financial institutions”), and their representatives (“investment professionals”), to receive conflicted compensation resulting from non-discretionary fiduciary investment advice to ERISA retirement plans, participants (including rollover recommendations), and IRA owners (all of whom are referred to as “retirement investors”). In addition, in the preamble to the PTE the DOL announced an expanded definition of fiduciary advice, meaning that many more financial institutions and investment professionals are fiduciaries for their recommendations to retirement investors and therefore will need the protection provided by the exemption.
For example, a rollover recommendation will ordinarily be nondiscretionary fiduciary advice and result in a prohibited transaction under both ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code (i.e., the compensation earned from the rollover IRA). But, since the recommendation is nondiscretionary, PTE 2020-02 provides relief, but only if its conditions are met.