Category Archives: prohibited transaction

Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #78


broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, General, prohibited transaction, registered investment advisers

The Fiduciary Rule: Mistaken Beliefs (#3)

This is my 78th 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.

The fiduciary regulation has been in effect since June of last year — a period of over six months. As you might expect, we are seeing mistakes and misunderstandings about activities that can result in fiduciary status for advisors. This article covers one of those.

The myth for this Angles is that broker-dealers and RIAs, and their advisors, must only recommend the lowest cost investments, for example, mutual funds with the lowest expense ratios. That is not correct.

In fact, the DOL has explained that:

“Consistent with the Department’s prior interpretations of this standard [the reasonable compensation standard], the Department confirms that an Adviser and Financial Institution do not have to recommend the transaction that is the lowest cost or that generates the lowest fees without regard to other relevant factors.” [81 Fed. Reg. 21002, at page 21030 (April 8, 2016)]

As indicated in that quote, and as explained elsewhere by the Department of Labor and several courts, an advisor’s fiduciary responsibility is to recommend investments with reasonable expenses . . . or, in a more specific context, to recommend mutual funds with expense ratios within the range of reasonableness for the particular plan and the type of fund.

For advisors with broker-dealers, the expense ratio of mutual funds typically includes a cost component and a compensation component (that is, compensation for the advisor). Assume, for example, that the expense ratio of a mutual fund is 100 basis points and that it includes a 12b-1 fee of 25 basis points. Viewed in terms of cost and compensation, the true cost of the mutual fund is 75 basis points and the cost of the advisor’s compensation is 25 basis points. In order to perform a proper analysis of cost of the investment, that distinction must be made.

Once the “true cost” is determined, that should be used as the expense ratio of the mutual fund for purpose of the fiduciary analysis of whether the cost of the investment is reasonable. (Note that, the reasonableness of the cost of an investment is a fiduciary issue measured by the best interest standard of care; however, the reasonableness of the compensation of the firm and the advisor is a prohibited transaction issue.)

A second step in the fiduciary analysis of cost is the determination of whether or not the appropriate share class is being recommended (including, for example, whether waivers are available). Generally speaking, the lowest cost available share class should be recommended. However, keep in mind that I am referring to the lowest “net cost” share class. In other words, the advisor’s compensation (for example, the 12b-1 fee) should be deducted to determine the true cost and then should be compared to the net cost of the other share classes of the same mutual fund.

Once an investment’s cost has been appropriately determined, and the appropriate share class has been determined, that information should be compared to similar data for other mutual funds in the same investment category. Again, though, the requirement is not that the lowest-cost investment be recommended. Instead, it is that the cost be reasonable relative to the value provided. On a practical level, that means that there is a range of reasonableness for a given type of investment. The risk is in recommending an investment that is clearly more expensive than what is typically charged for that type of investment.

Since a broker-dealer, RIA and advisor are fiduciaries for this purpose, the process used for the selection of investments and the determination of the reasonableness of cost should produce documentation that can be retained and retrieved. In other words, firms and advisors should be in a position to prove that they engaged in a prudent process.

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 #76


BICE, broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, prohibited transaction, prudent, registered investment advisers

Discretionary Management of IRAs: Prohibited Transaction Issues for RIAs

This is my 76th 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.

The regulation defining fiduciary advice for plans, participants and IRAs applied on June 9, 2017. As a result, we now have some experience with the fiduciary regulation and the transition prohibited transaction exemptions. Based on that experience, there are some significant misunderstandings about how the rules work. This article discusses one of those.

If a broker-dealer or RIA firm receives prohibited (or “conflicted”) compensation from an IRA, the compensation may be permissible under the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE). During the transition period (until July 1, 2019), BICE only requires that fiduciary advisors (such as broker-dealers and RIAs, and their representatives) adhere to the Impartial Conduct Standards. There are three Impartial Conduct Standards. Those are:

  • The best interest standard of care (which is, in its essence, a combination of ERISA’s prudent man rule and duty of loyalty).
  • The compensation of the financial institution and the individual advisor is no more than a reasonable amount for the services rendered.
  • Neither the financial institution nor the advisor makes any materially misleading mis-statements.

There are two other considerations, though. The first is that BICE is an exemption to the prohibited transaction rules and, therefore, the burden of proof is on the financial institution (e.g., the RIA firm or broker-dealer). As a result, compliance with those three Impartial Conduct Standards should be documented in a retrievable form. The second is that the Department of Labor has said that financial institutions need to have policies, procedures and practices that ensure that their advisors are adhering to the Impartial Conduct Standards.

All in all, though, it is possible to comply with those requirements. Stated another way, the most burdensome requirements in BICE were delayed until July 1, 2019—and will likely be revised before those rules apply.

However, there is a caveat. That is, BICE only applies to non-discretionary investment advice. In other words, if the financial institution or its advisors have the responsibility or authority to make the decisions, or if they actually make the investment or transaction decisions, and there is a financial conflict of interest (that is, a prohibited transaction), BICE does not provide relief. To make matters even worse, there are very few exemptions for prohibited transactions resulting from discretionary decisions. Based on conversations with RIAs over the last few months, I have learned that many of them are not aware that, where they have financial conflicts (for example, 12b-1 fees or payments from custodians) for discretionary investment management for IRAs, there is usually not an exemption and the compensation is prohibited.

In other words, where advisors have discretion, the “cleanest” approach is “pure” level fee advice. Any payments or financial benefits from third parties (e.g., custodians, mutual funds, insurance companies) are prohibited. The DOL’s definition of “discretion” is very broad, for example, if the advisor selects the share class, and the investor does not approve that share class in advance, the advisor (and therefore the financial institution) has exercised discretion.

With that in mind, my advice is that RIAs and broker-dealers should consult with their ERISA attorneys to make sure that they understand these rules and are in compliance.

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 #75


BICE, broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, prohibited transaction, prudent, registered investment advisers

The Fiduciary Rule: Mistaken Beliefs

This is my 75th 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.

The fiduciary regulation has been in effect since June of last year — a period of over six months. As you might expect, we are seeing mistakes and misunderstandings about activities that can result in fiduciary status for advisors. This article covers one of those.

In the past, there was a common belief among advisors that fiduciary status could be avoided by presenting a list of investments to plan sponsors. For example, an advisor might provide a list of three alternatives in each investment category (e.g., three alternatives for a large cap blend fund, three alternatives for a small cap fund, and so on). The belief was that, since the list did not “recommend” any particular investments, it could not be a fiduciary recommendation.

While that may (or may not) have been correct before June 9, it is not correct today. The presentation of a selective list will result in fiduciary status, implicating the prudent man rule, the duty of loyalty, and the fiduciary prohibited transactions.

To quote from the new fiduciary regulation:

“Providing a selective list of securities to a particular advice recipient as appropriate for that investor would be a recommendation as to the advisability of acquiring securities even if no recommendation is made with respect to any one security.”

While the practice of presenting selective lists was, at least in my experience, primarily for participant-directed plans, e.g., 401(k) plans, under the new definition, the presentation of selective lists of investments would also be fiduciary advice to individual retirement accounts and individual retirement annuities.

The “moral of the story” is that advisors and their supervisory entities (for example, broker-dealers and RIAs) need to realize that when they provide these types of lists, they will be making fiduciary recommendations. For recommendations to retirement plans, that means that the advisor must engage in a prudent process to evaluate the investments based on factors such as the expenses of the investments, the quality of investment management, the reasonableness of the compensation paid to the advisor from the investments (e.g., 12b-1 fees), and so on. From a risk management perspective, that process should be documented and retained in a retrievable form.

For recommendations to IRAs, if the advice is given by a “pure” level fee fiduciary, the advisor is not committing a prohibited transaction (that is, doesn’t have a financial conflict of interest), and the best interest standard of care does not apply to the advisor. A “pure” level fee advisor would typically be an RIA that charges a level advisory fee, does not receive any payments from the investments, and does not recommend any proprietary products.

However, where an advisor to an IRA receives payments from the investments or where the advisor can affect the level of his compensation based on the investments that are recommended, that would be a financial conflict of interest, which is a prohibited transaction under the Internal Revenue Code.

As a result, if an advisor presents a selective list of investments to the IRA owner, those would be viewed as fiduciary recommendations and any payments from the investments (such as 12b-1 fees) would be prohibited transactions. To avoid a violation, the advisor and the financial institution would need to satisfy the requirements of transition BICE. The most significant of those requirements is the best interest standard of care, which is a combination of ERISA’s prudent man rule and duty of loyalty. That standard of care is somewhat more demanding than the suitability and know-your-customer standards. Advisors and financial institutions need to understand these rules, so that they do not inadvertently fail to comply with them. Also, the burden of proof of compliance is on the financial institution; as a result, the best interest process should be documented.

The second “moral of the story” is that advisors should be familiar with the new rules, so that they don’t inadvertently fall into a compliance trap.

Forewarned and 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 #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 #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 #56


DOL, fiduciary, prohibited transaction

The Department of Labor has reversed its position on the issues discussed in the article below. Angles article #58 explains the changes.

Recommendations of Contributions as Fiduciary Advice

This is my 56th 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 Department of Labor’s Request for Information on the fiduciary rules and exemptions focuses on a number of issues that became apparent as financial institutions and advisers work to comply with the new requirements. One of these, which is addressed in the RFI, but which has not been generally discussed, is that a recommendation of a contribution, or of increased contributions, to plans and IRAs is a fiduciary act. As a result, if the recommended contribution causes higher compensation to be paid to the adviser (or the adviser’s financial institution), the recommendation would result in a prohibited transaction.

The problems are obvious. Even though there is a potential conflict of interest where an adviser could make a little more money because of the increased contributions, the benefits to participants of increasing their retirement savings in plans and IRAs are meaningful. In that regard, it seems that public policy would favor increased contributions to IRAs and plans, even though there may be some minor benefit to the person making the recommendation.

With that in mind, the Department of Labor’s RFI asked:

Contributions to Plans or IRAs

Should recommendations to make or increase contributions to a plan or IRA be expressly excluded from the definition of investment advice? Should there be an amendment to the Rule or streamlined exemption devoted to communications regarding contributions? If so, what conditions should apply to such an amendment or exemption?

The first question is whether a recommendation to make those contributions should be viewed as a fiduciary act. My view is that it should not. The benefits of increased contributions are so obvious, and the potential conflict is so small, that the easiest, and most direct, solution would be for the DOL to conclude that a recommendation to make or increase contributions is not fiduciary advice.

However, if the DOL doesn’t do that, it should follow through with a favorable response to the second question. In its essence, the DOL’s second question is whether there should be a streamlined exemption for contribution recommendations. A truly streamlined exemption might work. However, usually exemptions have conditions. If those requirements are more than di minimus, the rules would likely create a trap for the unwary. In saying that, I mean that many advisers might not be aware of those additional requirements when recommending that a retirement investor save more in his or her IRA or plan.

Hopefully, the DOL will conclude that recommendations to a participant or IRA owner to increase their retirement contributions is not a fiduciary act. If they conclude otherwise, a recommendation to make or increase contributions would result in a prohibited transaction . . . and an exemption will be necessary. Unless it is an exemption without conditions (which is rare, but possible), there will undoubtedly be inadvertent violations.

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 #53


BICE, broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, prohibited transaction, prudent

The Fiduciary Rule and Discretionary Investment Management

This is my 53rd 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 recent conversations I have learned that many broker-dealers and RIAs do not understand how the prohibited transaction rules and exemptions (and, particularly, the Best Interest Contract Exemption) apply differently to discretionary accounts and non-discretionary accounts. This article discusses some of those differences.

One similarity, though, is that ERISA’s prudent man rule and duty of loyalty apply for both discretionary and non-discretionary advice to retirement plans and participants.

However, ERISA does not generally govern investment advice to IRAs. As a result, absent the need for a prohibited transaction exemption, advisers to IRAs will not be governed by fiduciary/best interest standard of care. For example, where an adviser (and his or her supervisory entity) provides discretionary or non-discretionary investment advice to an IRA on a “pure” level fee basis, the adviser and the entity are subject to the fiduciary standards under the securities laws, but are not covered by the new fiduciary rule. That is because, where an adviser is providing advice for a reasonable level fee, it is not a prohibited transaction. As a result, an exemption is not needed. (By the way, a “pure” level fee is compensation that does not vary based on the advisory decisions or recommendations and that is not paid by third parties, e.g., 12b-1 fees, insurance commissions, etc. Also, the fee must be level across all related and affiliated parties.)

However, where there is a financial conflict of interest for non-discretionary or discretionary investment advice to an IRA, a prohibited transaction results. That includes, for example, where the adviser or supervisory entity (or any affiliated or related party) receives compensation in addition to the level fee. Examples of those additional, and conflicted, payments are: 12b-1 fees; insurance commissions and trails; proprietary products; asset-based revenue sharing; and payments from custodians.

Where conflicted payments are received, and a prohibited transaction occurs, the adviser and the supervisory entity will need an exemption. If the adviser provides non-discretionary investment advice, the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE) is available, if its conditions are satisfied. BICE requires only that the adviser and the supervisory entity comply with the Impartial Conduct Standards during the transition period (the transition period is from June 9 to December 31, 2017, but will likely be extended). The Impartial Conduct Standards are that the adviser and entity adhere to the best interest standard of care, receive no more than reasonable compensation for their services, and make no materially misleading statements. The entity–-the broker-dealer or RIA firm-–also needs to have procedures and practices to ensure that the conflicts do not result in advice that is not in the best interest of the retirement investor.

However, BICE cannot be used for prohibited transactions that result from discretionary investment management. In fact, there are only a few exemptions for discretionary investment management, and none as broad as BICE. For example, there is an exemption for the use of proprietary mutual funds.

As a result, many—and perhaps most—financial conflicts (that is, prohibited transactions) that result from discretionary investment management decisions are absolutely prohibited, because there are not exemptions for the conflicted payments.

The moral of this story is that RIA firms and broker-dealers need to distinguish between discretionary investment management and non-discretionary investment advice. For the time being, at least, most conflicts of interest for nondiscretionary advisers are permissible, if the Impartial Conduct Standards are satisfied. However, for discretionary investment management, there are few exemptions and most financial conflicts will be prohibited without any available exemptions. To the extent that the prohibited transaction rules are being inadvertently violated for managed IRAs, now is the time to correct the errors.

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 #50


BICE, broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, prohibited transaction, prudent, registered investment advisers

The Fourth Impartial Conduct Standard

This is my 50th 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.

When the Department of Labor announced that the fiduciary rule and the transition exemptions would apply on June 9, it also issued a non-enforcement policy and a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and Answers. The FAQs are titled “Conflict of Interest FAQs (Transition Period).”

For the most part, the FAQs are benign and helpful. However, FAQ 6 raises some significant issues for broker-dealers and RIA firms. In relevant part, FAQ 6 states:

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. For example, some firms have indicated that they intend to rely upon or build on existing regulatory compliance structures to monitor their advisers’ sales practices and recommendations, document the bases for those recommendations, and ensure that the impartial conduct standards are met (e.g., by subjecting transactions involving conflicts of interest to heightened scrutiny and surveillance).

As a general rule, the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE) requires only that broker-dealer and RIAs comply with the Impartial Conduct Standards. The Impartial Conduct Standards are:

  • The best interest standard of care.
  • No more than reasonable compensation.
  • No materially misleading statements.

However, the quoted language from FAQ 6 has the effect of adding a fourth requirement. It is that RIAs and broker-dealers, as financial institutions, adopt the policies and procedures “as they reasonably conclude are necessary to ensure that advisers comply with the Impartial Conduct Standards.”

That language should not be ignored. That is because, among other reasons, the non-enforcement policy requires that financial institutions, such as broker-dealers and RIAs, make a “diligent and good-faith” effort to comply with BICE. Since this additional requirement is imposed as a condition of BICE, it seems difficult to imagine that the non-enforcement policy would be available to a broker-dealer or RIA who did not adopt appropriate policies, procedures, practices and supervision.

Then, the question is, what is “appropriate”? The quoted language provides several alternatives. Those are:

  • Review and determine that existing policies, procedures and supervision is adequate for ensuring that the impartial conduct standards are met.
  • Review and revise existing policies, procedures and supervision, as needed.
  • Adjust adviser compensation to reduce and/or to otherwise manage the effects of conflicts of interest that arise from varying levels of compensation.
  • Heightened scrutiny, surveillance and supervision of transactions involving conflicts of interest.
  • Monitoring advisers’ sales practices and recommendations, including documenting the basis for recommendations.
  • A combination of the above and/or possibly other reasonable practices.

As I read this requirement, a good approach is for a financial institution to review its existing policies, procedures, compensation practices and supervision, and document why they will “ensure that advisers comply with the Impartial Conduct Standards.” No particular approach is required for doing that, but appropriate steps should be taken. (By the way, I specifically mention documentation of the decision because financial institutions may be required to demonstrate that they complied with this requirement. Also, under ERISA, the DOL has specifically stated that documentation is an integral part of a prudent process, and it appears likely that those requirements will apply to fiduciary services under BICE, as well.)

During the transition period, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that the DOL will accept any reasonable efforts to comply with this requirement. In other words, the DOL will probably apply a “reasonable efforts” standard, rather than a “strict compliance” standard. However, the attorneys who represent investors—most likely in arbitrations—will probably push for a higher standard. With that in mind, the broker-dealers and RIAs need to think about the policies, procedures, compensation practices and supervision that will appropriately manage the risk in that more demanding scenario.

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 #49


408(b)(2), broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, prohibited transaction, prudent, registered investment advisers, service providers

The Requirement to Disclose Fiduciary Status

This is my 49th 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.

When the new fiduciary rule applies on June 9, it will convert most non-fiduciary advisers into fiduciaries.

While there is not a disclosure requirement for new fiduciary advisers to IRAs, there is for these newly minted fiduciary advisers to plans. But it’s not part of the new regulation. Instead the requirement is found in the 408(b)(2) regulation which was effective in 2012.

As background, that regulation required that service providers to ERISA-governed retirement plans, including advisers, make written disclosures to plan fiduciaries of their services, compensation and “status.” The status requirement was that service providers disclose if they were fiduciaries under ERISA and/or the securities laws (e.g., RIAs). The regulation describes the status disclosure as follows:

If applicable, a statement that the covered service provider, an affiliate, or a subcontractor will provide, or reasonably expects to provide, services pursuant to the contract or arrangement directly to the covered plan…as a fiduciary…; and, if applicable, a statement that the covered service provider, an affiliate, or a subcontractor will provide, or reasonably expects to provide, services pursuant to the contract or arrangement directly to the covered plan as an investment adviser registered under either the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 or any State law.

(The reference to “subcontractor” includes representatives of broker dealers who are independent contractors.)

For the most part, broker-dealers, and insurance agents and brokers, have taken the position that they were not fiduciaries and therefore did not make the fiduciary disclosure. And, if they were not in fact fiduciaries, those disclosures worked from July 1, 2012 until June 9, 2017, when the new definition will make them fiduciaries.

Technically, that last sentence is not absolutely correct. Let me explain. First, the new regulation requires that, to be considered a fiduciary, the adviser (and the supervisory entity) must make an investment recommendation. And, until the first investment recommendation is made, the adviser and entity are not fiduciaries. However, the definition of investment recommendation is so broad that it may be best to treat June 9 as the day they became fiduciaries. For example, a recommendation is a “suggestion” that the plan fiduciaries select, hold or remove investments; that the fiduciaries use a fiduciary adviser to give advice on investments or to help participants with investments; that the fiduciaries include certain specified policies in the IPS; and so on.

In other words, under the new rules it’s hard for an adviser to work with a plan without being a fiduciary.

So, accepting that virtually all advisers to plans become fiduciaries on June 9, what does that mean for disclosure of fiduciary status?

The 408(b)(2) regulation generally provides that, after the initial notice is provided, no subsequent disclosures are required until there is a change in the information initially provided. But, of course, where the first notice was silent about fiduciary status, the transition to fiduciary status is a change. Here’s what the regulation says about changes:

A covered service provider must disclose a change to the information…as soon as practicable, but not later than 60 days from the date on which the covered service provider is informed of such change, unless such disclosure is precluded due to extraordinary circumstances beyond the covered service provider’s control, in which case the information must be disclosed as soon as practicable.

In other words, the service provider (e.g., the broker dealer and adviser) must make a written disclosure of the change to fiduciary status to the “responsible plan fiduciary” within “60 days from the date on which the [broker dealer/adviser] is informed of such change.” Unfortunately, there isn’t any guidance on when a service provider is “informed” of the change to fiduciary status under these circumstances. For example, was it the day that it was finally determined that the fiduciary regulation would be applicable on June 9? Or, will it be on June 9? Or, will it be the first day that the adviser makes the first post-June 9 recommendation?

In the absence of clear guidance, a conservative approach may be advisable. So, my suggestion is that the change notice be sent in June. That’s not my conclusion about the outer limit; instead, it’s a conservative position.

The consequence of the failure to make 408(b)(2) disclosures is that compensation paid the broker-dealer and the adviser is prohibited.

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 #48


BICE, broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, prohibited transaction, prudent

The Last Word: The Fiduciary Rule Applies on June 9

This is my 48th 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 Department of Labor has announced that it will not further delay the application of the fiduciary rule. As a result, the new fiduciary definition and the “transition” exemptions will apply to investment and insurance advice to plans, participants and IRA owners (“Retirement Investors” of “qualified accounts”) on June 9.

When the DOL announced its decision, it also issued additional guidance, in the form of FAQs and a non-enforcement policy.

For the most part, the FAQs were helpful.

For example, they clarify that certain types of information and conversation are educational, rather than fiduciary. However, FAQ #6 appears to have increased the compliance burden on “Financial Institutions,” such as broker-dealers, RIAs, banks and insurance companies. While the general rule for conflicted advice is that the Financial Institution and adviser must adhere to the Impartial Conduct Standards (see below), that Q&A said that Financial Institutions have additional responsibilities to manage conflicts so that variable compensation does not influence advisers to make recommendations that are not in the best interest of Retirement Investors.

The non-enforcement policy (Field Assistance Bulletin [FAB] 2017-02) provides that the DOL will not enforce the fiduciary standard or the exemptions during the transition period (from June 9 to December 31), so long as the Financial Institution is making diligent and good faith efforts to comply. However, the failure to make diligent and good faith efforts to comply will result in the loss of the benefit of the non-enforcement policy. Also, the IRS and Treasury will not enforce the fiduciary advice prohibited transactions during the transition period, so long as the requirements of the DOL non-enforcement policy are met.

What does this mean?

It means that, beginning on June 9, recommendations of investment or insurance products or services to qualified accounts must be evaluated two ways.

1.   Is the recommendation prudent and loyal?

Recommendations to ERISA-governed retirement plans and participants (including rollover recommendations) are subject to ERISA’s prudent man rule and duty of loyalty. ERISA protections apply and claims can be asserted based on breaches of the fiduciary rule.

However, IRAs (other than SEPs and SIMPLEs) are not governed by ERISA and, therefore, the fiduciary standard does not automatically apply (but see the prohibited transactions discussion below).

2.  Does the recommendation result in a prohibited transaction and, if so, are the conditions of an exemption satisfied?

Simply stated, any fiduciary recommendation that results in a payment from a third party (such as a mutual fund or an insurance company) or increases the compensation of the adviser or Financial Institution is a prohibited transaction. As a result, an exemption will be needed. The two most common exemptions are 84-24 (which applies to annuities and insurance products) and BICE (which applies to all types of investments and services, including insurance products). Both require that the adviser adhere to the Impartial Conduct Standards. (However, 84-24 has other requirements, including disclosure compensation and written approval by the Retirement Investor.)

This article focuses on transition BICE, since that exemption will be used in most cases.

As explained above, BICE requires that the Financial Institution and adviser adhere to the Impartial Conduct Standards. There are three such standards:

  • The Best Interest standard of care (which is, in its essence, a combination of ERISA’s prudent man rule and duty of loyalty).
  • The Financial Institution and the adviser can receive no more than reasonable compensation.
  • The adviser and Financial Institution cannot make materially misleading statements.

Since one of the conditions of BICE is that the Financial Institution and the adviser adhere to the Best Interest standard of care, the exemption effectively imposes a fiduciary standard of care. In other words, if the Financial Institution and adviser do not satisfy the fiduciary standard, the exemption will be lost and any compensation paid to the Financial Institution and adviser must be restored to the investor’s account. As a result, even though IRAs are not subject to ERISA’s prudent man rule, the exemption has the same effect as if advice to IRAs were subject to ERISA.

Financial Institutions (including broker-dealers, RIAs, banks and trust companies, and insurance companies) need to institute policies and procedures for compliance with these rules, including training of their representatives about how to satisfy the duties of prudence and loyalty.

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

 

Share