Category Archives: prohibited transaction

Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #46


BICE, DOL, fiduciary, prohibited transaction, prudent

How Does an Adviser Know How to Satisfy the Best Interest Standard?

This is my 46th 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.

Beginning on June 9, the new “transition” exemptions will apply to investment and insurance (e.g., annuities) recommendations for IRAs. If an adviser and his supervisory entity (the “financial institution”) are “pure” level fee fiduciaries, there will not be a prohibited transaction under the Internal Revenue Code (so long as the fees are reasonable). Two consequences flow from that. First, the adviser and entity will not need to use the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE), which means that they will not be bound by the best interest standard of care. Second, their services to the IRA will be regulated by the securities laws, and not by these new rules.

But, if there is a financial conflict of interest (that is, a prohibited transaction, or PT), the adviser and entity (e.g., broker dealer) will need to use an exemption in order to be paid. The most likely exemption is BICE, and one of the conditions is that the adviser and entity adhere to the “best interest standard of care.” But, what is the best interest standard of care? In essence, it is a combination of ERISA’s prudent man rule and duty of loyalty. Literally, it is:

Investment advice is in the “Best Interest” of the Retirement Investor when the Adviser and Financial Institution providing the advice act with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims, based on the investment objectives, risk tolerance, financial circumstances, and needs of the Retirement Investor, without regard to the financial or other interests of the Adviser, Financial Institution or any Affiliate, Related Entity, or other party.

While advisers to retirement plans are familiar with those concepts, many advisers to IRAs are not. That raises the question, how can those advisers know what is required? The answer is that fiduciary training and education are needed . . . and needed immediately in light of the June 9 applicability date.

What is the basis for the training? Answer: The fiduciary requirements in ERISA. The DOL made that clear in the preamble to BICE:

“The Best Interest standard set forth in the final exemption is based on longstanding concepts derived from ERISA and the law of trusts. It is meant to express the concept, set forth in ERISA section 404, that a fiduciary is required to act “solely in the interest of the participants . . . with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims.” Similarly, both ERISA section 404(a)(1)(A) and the trust-law duty of loyalty require fiduciaries to put the interests of trust beneficiaries first, without regard to the fiduciaries’ own self-interest.”

As a result, broker-dealers and others should look to training and education materials based on ERISA’s provisions, DOL regulations and guidance, and ERISA litigation. Those materials should cover the broad concepts and principles, but should also provide detailed education about the information to be reviewed and the processes to be followed, on a step-by-step basis.

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 #45


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

The DOL Fiduciary “Package”: Basics on the Prohibited Transaction Exemptions

This is my 45th 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.

My last post (Angles #44) discussed the requirements of ERISA’s prudent man rule and of the best interest standard of care for IRAs and plans. This article outlines the requirements of the two prohibited transaction exemptions that will apply to recommendations of investment products and services and insurance products to plans, participants and IRAs (“qualified accounts”). Those two exemptions are:

  • Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24 (which covers recommendations of insurance products, including annuities and life insurance policies). This “transition” 84-24 has been amended to cover all types of annuities (group and individual, variable, fixed rate and fixed index) and applies to the period from June 9, 2017 through December 31, 2017.
  • The Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE) which can be used for sales of any investment products and services or any insurance products (including those covered by 84-24) during the transition period.

Before discussing the general requirements of those exemptions, I should point out that not all advisory services require the use of an exemption. For example, if an adviser provides investment services to a plan, participant or IRA for a pure level fee, there is not a conflict of interest, in the sense that the adviser’s compensation remains the same regardless of the investments that are recommended. By “pure level fee,” I mean that neither the adviser, nor any affiliate nor related party (including the adviser’s supervisory entities, e.g., broker-dealer), receives any additional compensation or financial benefit.

If, however, the adviser, or any affiliated or related party, does receive additional compensation, that would be a financial conflict of interest, which is a “prohibited transaction” under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. In that case, the adviser would need to take advantage of one of the exemptions: BICE or 84-24. (I should point out that neither 84-24 nor BICE is available where the adviser has discretion over the investments in the plan, participant’s account or IRA. As a result, discretionary investment management must be for a pure level fee or a different exemption must be found.)

Here are some examples of compensation that constitutes a prohibited transaction: commissions; 12b-1 fees; trailing payments; asset-based revenue sharing; solicitor’s fees; proprietary investments; and payments from custodians. If any of those payments, or any other financial benefits (such as trips, gifts, or marketing allowances), are received by the adviser, or any affiliated or related party, partially or entirely as a result of an investment or insurance recommendations, that would be a prohibited transaction.

The most common exemption will be the Best Interest Contract Exemption. During the transition period, that exemption, BICE, requires only that the adviser (and the adviser’s Financial Institution, e.g., the RIA firm or broker-dealer) “adhere” to the Impartial Conduct Standards (ICS). There are three requirements in the ICS. Those are:

  • Best interest standard of care (which, in its essence, consists of the prudent man rule and duty of loyalty).
  • The receipt of only reasonable compensation.
  • The avoidance of any materially misleading statements.

The use of the word “adhere” means only that the adviser and Financial Institution must comply with those requirements. There is not a requirement to notify the plan, participant or IRA owner of those requirements, nor is there a requirement during the transition period to enter into a Best Interest Contract.

On the other hand, 84-24 does impose some written requirements. For example, the insurance agent or broker must disclose his initial and recurring compensation, expressed as a percentage of the commission payments. And, the plan fiduciaries or IRA owners must, in writing, acknowledge receipt of that information and affirm the transaction. On top of that, though, the agent must also “adhere” to the Impartial Conduct Standards.

It is my view that Financial Institutions (such as broker-dealers and IRA firms) should, between now and June 9, focus on the fiduciary processes that will be implemented by the home offices (for example, which mutual fund families and insurance products can be sold to “qualified” accounts such as IRAs plans). In a sense, the Financial Institutions will be co-fiduciaries with the advisers and, therefore, share responsibility for the recommendations that are made to the qualified accounts. As a result, Financial Institutions need to have protective policies, procedures and practices in place.

In addition, the home offices of Financial Institutions need to focus on the training of their advisers to comply with the prudent process requirement imposed by the fiduciary rules, including documentation of those processes. While part of a prudent process will be similar to what is currently required under the suitability and know-your-customer rules, these new fiduciary standards place greater emphasis on certain factors, for example, the costs of investments and the quality of the investment management (as well as the financial stability of an insurance company).

With regard to the reasonable compensation requirement, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that the compensation was reasonable. In other words, the burden of proof will be on the broker-dealer, the RIA firm, and the agent or insurance adviser. As a result, advisers and Financial Institutions should have data in place to support their compensation for each investment category that they recommend to plans, participants and IRA owners.

Finally, with regard to 84-24, the required disclosure and consent forms need to be developed and agents need to be educated on the use of the forms, including the disclosure and consent requirements.

Unfortunately, in a short article like this one, I can only discuss some of the requirements. Obviously, there is more than this, but this is a good starting point for understanding the rules and working on compliance with the new requirements.

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 #44


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

The Basic Structure of the Fiduciary Package (June 9)

This is my 44th 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.

This article focuses on the fiduciary rule; next week I will discuss two of the exemptions, the Best Interest Contract Exemption and 84-24.

As we all know by now, the DOL’s new fiduciary definition applies on June 9. As a result the following recommendations will be fiduciary acts on and after June 9:

  • Recommendations of investments, investment strategies, insurance and annuities, investment managers, other fiduciaries, distributions and rollovers, and IRA transfers;
  • Recommendations to ERISA plans, participants or IRA owners.

Fiduciary recommendations to plans and participants (including rollover recommendations) will be subject to ERISA’s prudent man rule and duty of loyalty and, therefore, any breaches can be enforced as ERISA claims.

The same is not true for recommendations to IRAs, because the law does not establish a prudent man and duty of loyalty standard of care for advice to IRAs.

However, that is not the end of the story.

Where an adviser provides fiduciary services to an IRA for a level fee (for example, 1% per year and no other benefits or compensation is received), the adviser will be subject to the standard of care established by the securities laws.

But, if the adviser (or his supervisory entity, e.g., a broker-dealer) receives compensation that is a prohibited transaction (e.g., commissions, 12b-1 fees, asset-based revenue sharing, etc.), the adviser and entity will need the protection of a prohibited transaction exemption.

For the rest of this year–the “transition period,” most firms will use the Best Interest Contract Exemption. However, it is not the BICE you have been hearing about over the past year. Instead, it is “transition BICE.” Transition BICE requires that the entity and the adviser only comply with the Impartial Conduct Standards (ICS). The ICS has 3 components: the best interest standard of care, only reasonable compensation, and no materially misleading statements.

In effect the best interest standard of care brings the ERISA prudent man rule and duty of loyalty to IRAs. As a result, advisers and their supervisory entities need to educate themselves on the requirements of a prudent process with a duty of loyalty to the IRA owner. The suitability and know-your-customer requirements are a part of that, but only part.

Some other things to consider are:

  • The DOL has historically taken the position that a prudent process must be documented. How will advisers be doing that?
  • It is clear that under ERISA, advisers to plans must consider the costs of the investments. That is likely to be extended to IRAs under the best interest standard. How will advisers to IRAs evaluate the expense ratios of recommended mutual funds and the expenses imbedded in annuities? Will the entities (e.g., broker-dealers) be specifying which software is to be used for that purpose?
  • It is also clear under ERISA that the quality of the mutual funds must be considered, quantitatively and qualitatively. What will that process look like for IRAs? How will it be documented? What software will be used for that purpose? Some broker-dealers are limiting the mutual fund families that can be recommended to “qualified” accounts.

These are just some examples. There are others.

But, for the moment, the message is that, beginning on June 9, advisers and their supervisory entities must understand and apply these concepts.

Since the deadline is right around the corner, these are high priority issues.

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 #43


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

BICE Transition: More Than the Eye Can See

This is my 43rd 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.

As we all know by now, the new, and greatly expanded, definition of fiduciary advice becomes applicable on June 9. That means that almost any investment or insurance recommendation to a plan, participant, or IRA will be a fiduciary act. (The definition of investment recommendations is also very broad, including referrals to investment managers, recommendations to take distributions from plans, and recommendations to transfer IRAs.)

As a result, investment and insurance recommendations to participants and plans must be prudently developed and must be loyal to the plan or participant. But, recommendations to IRAs will not be subject to the prudent man standard of care. Instead, they would be subject to the SEC fiduciary duty for RIAs, FINRA’s suitability and know-your-customer standards for broker-dealers, and state law standards of care for both RIAs and broker-dealers.

However, this story does not end there. When investment recommendations cause a third party to pay compensation to the adviser (for example, commissions or 12b-1 fees), that is a prohibited transaction. Also, when the adviser makes a recommendation that causes the adviser to receive additional compensation (for example, a commission on a securities transaction), that is a prohibited transaction. Because of those prohibited transactions (for recommendations to plans, participants and IRAs), an adviser must satisfy the conditions of an exemption.

During the period from June 9 to December 31, the likely exemption will be “transition” BICE, that is, the transition rule under the Best Interest Contract Exemption. Fortunately, those conditions should be fairly easy to satisfy. In fact, there is only one condition, but it has three parts. The condition is that the adviser (and the adviser’s Financial Institution) comply with the Impartial Conduct Standards (ICS). The three parts of ICS are: (1) The best interest standard of care; (2) no more than reasonable compensation; and (3) no materially misleading statements.

Focusing on the best interest standard of care, that means that the adviser and the Financial Institution must engage in a prudent process to develop investment recommendations and must act with a duty of loyalty to the plan, participant or IRA owner.

However, the purpose of this article is to discuss requirements that aren’t obvious on the face of the ICS. In other words, there is more to the rule than meets the eye. That’s because, in the DOL’s final regulation extending the applicability date of the fiduciary rule, the Department said:

Also note that even though the applicability date of the exemption conditions have been delayed during the transition period, it is nevertheless anticipated that firms that are fiduciaries will implement procedures to ensure that they are meeting their fiduciary obligations, such as changing their compensation structures and monitoring the sales practices of their advisers to ensure that conflicts in interest do not cause violations of the Impartial Conduct Standards, and maintaining sufficient records to corroborate that they are adhering to Impartial Conduct Standards.

In other words, while the explicit compensation requirement of the ICS is that advisers and Financial Institutions cannot receive more than reasonable compensation, the DOL is saying that a Financial Institution’s compensation structures cannot promote investment recommendations that are not in the best interest of the investor. Think about that. One possible interpretation is that, even though the compensation of the adviser can vary, both for similar products (e.g., mutual funds) and among product categories (e.g., mutual funds vs. variable annuities), the variation cannot be so great as to unreasonably promote advice that is inconsistent with the best interest standard of care.

That raises the obvious question, how much is too much?

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to answer that question. Having said that though, I think that the answer will be somewhat like the famous Supreme Court position . . . “You know it when you see it.”

In any event, broker-dealers, RIA firms, and other Financial Institutions should evaluate their compensation practices and consider whether they align with the quoted language.

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 #41


DOL, fiduciary, prohibited transaction, prudent

While We Wait: The Current Fiduciary Rule and Annuities

This is my 41st 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.

As explained in previous posts, the delay of the new fiduciary rule does not mean that we are “rule-less.” Instead, the “old” rule, and exemptions, which have been place for decades, will continue to apply. Does that mean that we are back in the “good old days” where we won’t need to pay attention to the application of the fiduciary rule to IRAs?  I don’t think so.

Over the past few years, a tremendous amount of attention has been paid to the meaning and consequences of being a fiduciary . . . and I doubt that we can walk back from that. And, with this newfound attention, it is possible that many common practices will, when closely examined, result in fiduciary status under the old rule.

The consequences of unknowingly being a fiduciary are significant. If a fiduciary recommendation results in the payment of a commission to a fiduciary adviser or insurance agent, that payment would be a prohibited transaction and, absent compliance with any exemptions (e.g.., 84-24), the commission would be prohibited.

For example, the most common reason that advisors and insurance agents haven’t considered themselves to be fiduciaries for annuities is that their services haven’t been rendered “on a regular basis”. In other words, the sales have been viewed as one-time events. Let’s see how that stands up against common practices for sales and servicing of annuities in IRAs.

What about fixed rate (or “traditional”) annuities? It’s possible, perhaps even probable, that the sale of the annuity is a one-time event and that recommendations are not provided on an on-going basis. In that case, these sales would not be fiduciary services. However, if the agent periodically recommends additional purchases, that could result in fiduciary status. (Keep in mind that the definition is “functional” and it doesn’t matter what the agreements say. Instead, the conduct of the advisor is examined.)

What about fixed indexed annuities? Similar to their fixed rate cousins, the sale could be a one-time event and, therefore, not a fiduciary recommendation. On the other hand, if there are ongoing services that would be fiduciary activities, it can result in fiduciary status.

What about variable annuities? The recommendation of a variable annuity may contemplate ongoing fiduciary services, for example, recommendations about the mutual funds inside the annuity and the allocations and reallocations among those investments. In that case, the services could result in fiduciary status and the payment of the commission could be a prohibited transaction. As a result, both advisers and agents should consider using PTE 84-24. (Remember that 84-24, in its old form, is still in effect and that, therefore, all three types of annuities are covered by the exemption.)

So, after you heave a sigh of relief for the delay of the fiduciary rule, it’s time to go back to work on fiduciary issues . . . and an important one is the treatment of the recommendation of annuities to IRAs.

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 #40


DOL, fiduciary, General, prohibited transaction, registered investment advisers

New Rule, Old Rule: What Should Advisers Do Now?

This is my 40th 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.

Now that it seems clear that the applicability date of the new fiduciary regulation will be delayed, many advisers (including broker-dealers and RIA firms) may heave a sigh of relief. However, while some relief is justified, that does not mean that their services are not governed, in many cases, by the “old” fiduciary regulation. (By “old” rule, I refer to the DOL regulation that defines fiduciary advice and that has been in effect for decades.) With all the attention that has been devoted to fiduciary status and prohibited transactions, it is possible, perhaps even probable, that the old rule will be applied more vigorously. As a result, advisers need to understand its provisions and need to review their practices to determine whether they are currently acting as fiduciaries under the old rule. To properly discuss that issue, advisory services need to be divided into four categories: advice to plans; advice to participants; advice to IRAs; and recommendations of plan distributions and rollovers. This article will discuss the first of those categories . . . advice to retirement plans.

Briefly stated, the old—and current–fiduciary rule has a five-part test:

  • A recommendation of an investment, insurance product, investment manager, and/or investment strategy or policy.
  • The advice must be given on a regular basis, that is, on an ongoing basis.
  • There must be a mutual understanding between the adviser and the plan fiduciaries.
  • The understanding is that the advice will be a primary basis for decision-making.
  • The advice is individualized and based on the particular needs of the plan.

With regard to qualified retirement plans (for example, 401(k) plans), those conditions will likely be satisfied in many cases. For example, it is common, perhaps even typical, for an adviser to meet with plan fiduciaries quarterly or annually. As a result, the advice is given on a regular basis. Similarly, when an adviser provides a list of investments, it is difficult to say that they are not individualized to the plan, because of the suitability requirements that apply to broker-dealers, RIAs, and insurance agents. In any event, there is a significant risk that an adviser who provides a list of investments to plan fiduciaries will be considered to have made fiduciary recommendations.

As a result, and with likely heightened scrutiny of advisers’ recommendations and fiduciary status, broker-dealers and insurance agents should consider whether they are willing to run the risk of being a fiduciary. (As this suggests, RIA’s probably are fiduciaries for ERISA plans.) And, if they are willing to be fiduciaries, there should be a formal program in place for that purpose. For example, a broker-dealer might establish a fiduciary advisory program under its corporate RIA and allow its most experienced retirement plan advisers to participate in that program. For those advisers who won’t be allowed to be fiduciaries under the RIA program, those broker-dealers should consider requiring that the advisers only recommend 401(k) providers who have platform fiduciaries. For example, a recordkeeping platform might offer a 3(21) non-discretionary fiduciary investment adviser and/or a 3(38) discretionary fiduciary investment manager. In that case, the platform fiduciary would recommend or select the investments, while the adviser would provide other services to the plan, for example, assistance with plan design, coordination with the recordkeeper, participant education meetings, and so on.

My point is that, now that we are more aware of the fiduciary definitions and the impact of fiduciary status, advisers need to be more attentive to their services and to whether those services result in fiduciary status. Correspondingly, their supervisory entities (for example, broker-dealers) need to make decisions about how those services will be offered, including whether some of the registered representatives can be 401(k) fiduciaries under the corporate RIA.

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 #31


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

“Un-levelizing” Level Fee Fiduciaries

This is my 31st 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.

In the last article I posted, I discussed the three meanings of “Level Fee Fiduciary.” This article discusses the kinds of payments or benefits that will “un-levelize” a Level Fee Fiduciary.

As a starting point, the definition of compensation, for these purposes, includes any money or things of monetary value. So, it covers both cash and non-cash amounts. However, as the DOL explains, it must be directly or indirectly connected to a recommendation:

The term ‘‘fee or other compensation, direct or indirect’’ means . . . any explicit fee or compensation for the advice received by the person (or by an affiliate) from any source, and any other fee or compensation received from any source in connection with or as a result of the purchase or sale of a security or the provision of investment advice services, . . . A fee or compensation is paid ‘‘in connection with or as a result of’’ such transaction or service if the fee or compensation would not have been paid but for the transaction or service or if eligibility for or the amount of the fee or compensation is based in whole or in part on the transaction or service. [Emphasis added.]

In other words, if an adviser ordinarily charges a level fee (for example, 1% per year) for non-discretionary investment advice or discretionary investment management for plans, participants or IRAs, and receives any additional benefits or payments attributable to those services, the additional payments will un-levelize the adviser’s compensation and result in a prohibited transaction. (However, as explained in the last article, if the payments or benefits are offset dollar-for-dollar, the adviser will re-levelize his or her compensation.)

Some forms of additional compensation are obvious. For example, that includes commissions, 12b-1 fees, revenue sharing, trailing commissions, and so on. Others, though, are more subtle and, therefore, easier to overlook. Those could include trips, gifts, awards, reimbursements, marketing support, conference registrations, and so on. The DOL pointed to some of those payments in its definition of third party payments in the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE):

‘‘Third-Party Payments’’ include sales charges when not paid directly by the Plan, participant or beneficiary account, or IRA; gross dealer concessions; revenue sharing payments; 12b–1 fees; distribution, solicitation or referral fees; volume-based fees; fees for seminars and educational programs; and any other compensation, consideration or financial benefit provided to the Financial Institution or an Affiliate or Related Entity by a third party as a result of a transaction involving a Plan, participant or beneficiary account, or IRA. [Emphasis added.]

In the fiduciary regulation, the DOL gave additional examples of compensation as:

. . . including, though not limited to, commissions, loads, finder’s fees, revenue sharing payments, shareholder servicing fees, marketing or distribution fees, underwriting compensation, payments to brokerage firms in return for shelf space, recruitment compensation paid in connection with transfers of accounts to a registered representative’s new broker-dealer firm, gifts and gratuities, and expense reimbursements.” [Emphasis added.]

While advisers to retirement plans have, by and large, been aware of these rules, my experience is that advisers who focus primarily on wealth management, including advice to IRAs, are not familiar with the rules.

To paraphrase Hill Street Blues (for those of you old enough to remember that show) . . . Be careful out there.

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 #30


BICE, DOL, fiduciary, prohibited transaction

Three Kinds of Level Fee Fiduciaries . . . and What’s A “Level Fee?”

This is my 30th 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.

The DOL’s use of the phrase “Level Fee Fiduciary” is creating a lot of confusion about the application of the new fiduciary regulation and the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE). This article, and the next one, will try to dispel some of that confusion.

The label “Level Fee Fiduciary” has been used for many years for one meaning, but BICE has used it for a different purpose and, depending on your reading, a different definition.

Historically, Level Fee Fiduciary referred to a fiduciary adviser whose compensation was level or, at least, levelized. What’s the different between level and levelized? “Level” refers to an adviser who has a stated fee, for example, 1% per year, and does not receive any other payments. “Levelized” refers to a fiduciary adviser who has a stated fee (e.g., 1%), but who receives payments from third parties as a result of the recommendations — and then levelizes those payments by offsetting them dollar-for-dollar against the 1% fee. In both of those cases, the advisers receive no more, nor any less, than the 1%. Based on two DOL advisory opinions, the offset method works to, in effect, create a level fee. (An alternative method of levelizing is to pay the third party amounts into the plan or IRA; to be safe, that should be mandated in the agreement with the retirement investor.)

The advisers are not committing a prohibited transaction in either of these cases. As a result, the advisers do not need an exemption, or exception, from a prohibited transaction.

BICE then used “Level Fee Fiduciary” in a different setting. In BICE — a prohibited transaction exemption, the rule only applies to three scenarios. Those are: (1) a recommendation to take a distribution from a plan and roll over to an IRA with the adviser; (2) a recommendation to transfer an IRA to the adviser; and (3) a recommendation to switch “qualified money” from a commission-based account to a fee-based account. Each of those three recommendations will result in a prohibited transaction if the adviser receives more compensation if the retirement investor accepts the recommendation. Needless to say, an adviser will almost always make more money (with the possible exception of the case where the adviser is charging the same fee in the IRA as the adviser charged for services to the plan).

For the BICE provisions on these three scenarios (which is sometimes referred to as BICE-lite), the definition of “Level Fee Fiduciary” is:

“A Financial Institution and Adviser are ‘Level Fee Fiduciaries’ if the only fee received by the Financial Institution, the Adviser and any Affiliate in connection with advisory or investment management services to the Plan or IRA assets is a Level Fee that is disclosed in advance to the Retirement Investor. A ‘Level Fee’ is a fee or compensation that is provided on the basis of a fixed percentage of the value of the assets or a set fee that does not vary with the particular investment recommended, rather than a commission or other transaction-based fee.”

In and of itself, that definition could either mean (1) that no other payments can be received by the adviser, or (2) that the adviser could receive other payments so long as they were not on top of, or in addition to, the stated fee (that is, it would be permissible if the additional payments were offset dollar-for-dollar, such that they did not increase the fee). Unfortunately, at least one senior DOL official has said that the Department intended for the language to mean that no additional payments could be received regardless of whether they were offset or not. Keep in mind, though, that the statement of individual DOL employees are not considered to be legal authority.

The third use of the concept of Level Fee Fiduciary is in the Pension Protection Act “level fee” exemption. That involves an entirely different situation. In that case, if the conditions of the exemption are satisfied, an organization can commit a prohibited transaction, so long as the advice is provided by a separate unit that receives only level fee compensation for providing the advice. For example, that separate unit could recommend proprietary funds to IRAs and participants, without violating the law.

So, those are the three scenarios in which an adviser could be labeled as a Level Fee Fiduciary. But, the definitions, the requirements for compliance and the compensation considerations are different for each of the scenarios.

Hopefully, that clarifies the meaning. In my next post, I will talk about the forms of compensation that would cause an adviser’s level fee to become “un-levelized.”

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 #29


BICE, DOL, fiduciary, prohibited transaction, prudent

Capturing Rollovers: What Information is Needed?

This is my 29th 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.

The Department of Labor’s fiduciary regulation provides that a recommendation to take a distribution from a plan, and to roll the money over to an IRA, is a fiduciary act. As a result, the recommendation must be prudent and cannot result in a prohibited transaction. However, a prohibited transaction almost automatically occurs, since an adviser typically makes higher fees in the IRA than from the plan (even where the adviser is providing services to the plan). As a result, an exemption is needed, even if the recommendation is otherwise prudent. Fortunately, the Level Fee Fiduciary provision of the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE) provides the framework for qualifying for an exemption.

In addition to the fiduciary regulation and BICE, other rules regulate the recommendation of distributions. For example, in Regulatory Notice 13-45, FINRA stated that a recommendation to take a distribution from a plan must be “suitable.” (In effect, FINRA was saying that a recommendation to take a distribution from a plan is tantamount to a recommendation to a participant to liquidate the participant’s investments in the plan; therefore, it is a securities recommendation.) FINRA then provides a number of considerations for advisers to evaluate in making a suitable recommendation. Those factors and considerations are remarkably similar to the considerations in a prudent process under ERISA.

In addition to the FINRA guidance, the DOL issued an advisory opinion (2005-23A) that concluded that a fiduciary to a plan (for example, a fiduciary adviser) who makes recommendations to participants to take distributions and roll over to IRAs is a fiduciary for the purpose of these recommendations. As with the new regulation, that implicates the fiduciary standard of care and the prohibited transaction rules.

With that in mind, the general rule for the prudence of recommending a rollover (as opposed to the prohibited transaction issues) is that a fiduciary adviser engage in a prudent process. But, that begs the question . . . what does an adviser need to do? More specifically, a prudent process produces an “informed” and “reasoned” recommendation. A recommendation is “informed” if the adviser has gathered and evaluated the information that a knowledgeable person would consider to be relevant to the issue. A reasoned decision is one that bears a reasonable relationship to the information that was evaluated.

What are the relevant factors for evaluating whether a participant should take a distribution? In other words, what information does an adviser need to gather and review?

In BICE, the DOL identifies three specific types of relevant information about the retirement plan. (Note that there may be relevant factors in addition to these three, but the DOL is saying that a recommendation to take a distribution would, at the least, need to consider these.) Those factors are: the investments in the plan; the services provided by the plan; and the expenses in the plan. Examples of other relevant matters are whether the plan permits periodic distributions without charge, and whether the participant is invested in company stock in the plan (particularly if the participant has a low basis in the company stock compared to its current value). Those factors, and other relevant matters about the plan, need to be evaluated. Of course, that means that information needs to be obtained.

Where the adviser already provides services to a plan, it should be relatively easy to gather the information. However, if the adviser does not work with the plan, the adviser will need to make a diligent effort to gather that information. (The Department of Labor says in Question 14 of the FAQs that the adviser “must make diligent and prudent efforts to obtain information on the existing plan.” Question 14 goes on to say: “In general, such information should be readily available as a result of DOL regulations mandating plan disclosure of salient information to the plan’s participants (see 29 CFR 2550.404a-5).)”

In other words, the adviser should ask the participant for a copy of the plan’s 404a-5 disclosures (which are also known as participant disclosures and/or the Investment Comparative Chart). That should be readily available to a participant, since those materials are provided to participants when initially eligible and, again, each year thereafter. In addition, an adviser could ask a participant for his most recent quarterly statement, which should reflect any expenses being charged against the participant’s account, as well as how the participant is invested and the account balance. Those statements should also be readily available since, for participant-directed plans, they are provided quarterly.

In addition a participant would have access to materials through the participant’s page on the plan’s website.

In other words, the information is readily available. (Note that the FAQs provide alternative methods of obtaining the information, but only after the adviser has engaged in “diligent and prudent efforts to obtain information,” but has not been able to do so.)

In addition to the information about investments and expenses, an adviser also needs to obtain information about plan services. In many cases, that could be done through interviewing the participant. For example, does the plan have a brokerage account option? Does the plan provide non-discretionary investment advice services or discretionary investment management services? Once that information has been gathered, an adviser should compare it to comparable information about the proposed IRA. While the gathering of information, in and of itself, can take some work, the analysis is the critical step. The information is just the foundation from which to make the analysis.

The key to the analysis and the development of a prudent recommendation is to focus on the best interest of the participant. Also, keep in mind that BICE requires that the adviser document why the recommendation is in the best interest of the investor.

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 #26


BICE, broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, prohibited transaction, service providers

Reasonable Compensation for IRAs: When and How Long?

This is my twenty-sixth article about interesting observations concerning the fiduciary rule and exemptions.

This article is a little different than most of my previous posts. However, it is equally as important. To get to the point, I am writing this article about reasonable compensation for advice to IRAs because of a common misunderstanding about the requirement.

In the last month or two, I have seen a number of articles and heard several comments to the effect that it will be difficult to determine reasonable compensation for IRAs because the rule is so new. Stated a little differently, the point is that the reasonable compensation requirement for IRAs will first become effective on April 10, 2017. That is not correct.

Section 4975(c)(1)(C) provides that the “furnishing of . . . services . . . between a plan and a disqualified person” is a prohibited transaction. However, section 4975(d)(2) permits, as an exception to that general prohibition, “any contract, or reasonable arrangement, made with a disqualified person for . . . services necessary for the establishment or operation of a plan, if no more than reasonable compensation is paid therefor.” (Section 4975(e)(2) defines a “disqualified” person as “a person providing services to the plan.” Then, 4975(e)(1)(B) defines a “plan” as “an individual retirement account.” And, (C) includes “an individual retirement annuity.”)

In other words, the reasonable compensation limitation is not new. It’s been with us for decades.

But, if that’s the case, why hasn’t there been more discussion and, in the bigger picture, more enforcement of the rule? There are two reasons. The first is that, by and large, the rule has been ignored. How is that possible? That’s because only the Internal Revenue Service can enforce the rule, but it hasn’t. In this case, the 15% excise tax under section 4975 would be enforced against the service provider, that is, the adviser. But, if the rule has been in effect for years without much publicity, why is there so much discussion now?

The answer is that the Department of Labor has, in conjunction with the fiduciary rule, issued two exemptions—84-24 for life insurance policies and fixed rate annuities, and the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE) for any and all investments that can be sold to plans and IRAs. Both of those exemptions—which are needed where prohibited compensation results from the investment or insurance recommendation—limit the adviser’s compensation for recommended investments and insurance products to be no more than a reasonable amount. In the case of BICE, for example, the Financial Institution (e.g., the broker-dealer) must agree that its compensation and the adviser’s compensation for their services will not exceed a reasonable amount. IRA and plan investors will be able to pursue breach of contract claims for excess compensation.

So, while the law limiting the compensation of advisers (and Financial Institutions) is not new, the enforcement mechanism will be.

While the new rules seem burdensome, I believe that a variety of services will be developed to assist Financial Institutions in determining reasonable compensation for different levels of services related to different types of products.

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

Share