Category Archives: registered investment advisers

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 #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 #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 #42


broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, General, prudent, registered investment advisers

Rollovers under the DOL’s Final Rule

This is my 42nd 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 April 7, 2017 the DOL issued its final regulation on the extension of the applicability date for the fiduciary definition and the related exemptions. This article discusses the impact of those changes on fiduciary status for recommendations to plan participants to take distributions and roll over to IRAs.

In its guidance, the DOL extended the applicability date of the new fiduciary definition from April 10 to June 9, but did not otherwise modify the definition. Since the fiduciary rule defined a recommendation to take a plan distribution as fiduciary advice, any recommendation to take a distribution and rollover to an IRA on or after June 9 will be a fiduciary act. As a result, an adviser will need to engage in a prudent process to develop and make such a recommendation. (For purposes of this rule, an “adviser” includes a representative of an RIA or a broker-dealer, an insurance agent or broker, or any other person who makes such a recommendation and receives compensation, directly or indirectly, as a result. An advisory fee from the IRA or a commission from an annuity or mutual fund are examples of compensation.)

However, more is involved that just the fiduciary rule. A recommendation to rollover is also a prohibited transaction, since the adviser will typically make more money if the participant rolls over than if the participant leaves the money in that plan. Because of the prohibited transaction, the adviser will need an exemption. Under the latest changes to the rules, advisers will probably use a process called “transition BIC,” which is a reference to a transition rule under the Best Interest Contract Exemption. (This process applies only from June 9 to December 31, unless it is extended. But it is likely that, at the least, these requirements will be part of any future exemption.). Transition BIC requires only that the adviser comply with the “Impartial Conduct Standards” (ICS).

The ICS requires that advisers adhere to the best interest standard of care, receive no more than reasonable compensation, and make no materially misleading statements. For this article, let’s focus on the best interest standard. Generally stated it is a combination of the ERISA prudent man rule and duty of loyalty.

So, an adviser must satisfy both ERISA’s prudent man rule (for the recommendation) and the BIC best interest rule (for the exemption). Since the two standards of care are virtually identical, I have combined them for this discussion.

But, that begs the question of, what is a prudent and best interest process?

Specifically, it is that the adviser must act “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; . . .”

So, what would a prudent, knowledgeable and loyal person, who is making a recommendation about retirement investing (the “aims” of the “enterprise”), do? The first step is to gather the information needed to make an informed decision. Then that information needs to be evaluated in light of the participant’s needs and circumstances of the participant . . .with a duty of loyalty to the participant.

The only clear guidance from the DOL about what information needs to be gathered and evaluated is found in Q14 in the DOL’s Conflict of Interest FAQs (Part I-Exemptions).

The first part of the FAQ discusses the information needed if the adviser is a “Level Fee Fiduciary.” Basically, the information includes the investments, expenses and services in the plan and the proposed IRA.

But at the end of the FAQ, the DOL explains that those considerations must be evaluated even if the adviser is using regular BIC (as opposed to the Level Fee Fiduciary provision).

Accordingly, any fiduciary seeking to meet the best interest standard (in order to satisfy transition BIC) would engage in a prudent analysis of this information before recommending that an investor roll over plan assets to an IRA, regardless of whether the fiduciary was a “level fee” fiduciary or a fiduciary complying with BIC.

In other words, any adviser making a distribution and rollover recommendation on or after June 9, 2017 must have a process for gathering and evaluating information about the investments, expenses and services in the participant’s plan and in the proposed IRA, and about the participant’s needs and circumstances.

This subject is more complicated than can be covered adequately in a short article, but this is a start for understanding the new rules for distributions and rollovers.

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 #38


broker-dealers, DOL, registered investment advisers, SEC

SEC Examinations of RIAs and Broker-Dealers under the ReTIRE Initiative

This is my 38th 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.

As explained in my last post (Angles #37), the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) issued a National Exam Program Risk Alert concerning examinations about services offered by RIAs and broker-dealers to investors with retirement accounts. One of the areas specifically identified for those examinations is “Reasonable Basis for Recommendations.” The OCIE described that issue as:

“Registrants have important obligations under the federal securities laws and SRO rules (with respect to broker-dealers) when making recommendations or providing investment advice. To the extent applicable and required, the staff will assess the actions of registrants and their representatives for consistency with these obligations when: (i) selecting the type of account; (ii) performing due diligence on investment options; (iii) making initial investment recommendations; and (iv) providing on-going account management.”

At the end of the language about “selecting the type of account,” the SEC included a footnote that referenced FINRA guidance on rollovers to IRAs. That footnote said:

“See FINRA, Rollovers to Individual Retirement Accounts, Regulatory Notice 13-45 (December 2013) (FINRA Regulatory Notice 13-45) (“A recommendation concerning the type of retirement account in which a customer should hold his retirement investments typically involves a recommended securities transaction, and thus is subject to Rule 2111. For example, a firm may recommend that an investor sell his plan assets and roll over the cash proceeds into an IRA. Recommendations to sell securities in the plan or to purchase securities for a newly-opened IRA are subject to Rule 2111.”)”

Combining the language in the Risk Alert with the language in the footnote, the OCIE is saying that recommendations to participants to take distributions from plans (that is, from one type of account), and rolling over to an IRA (that is, to another type of account) will be scrutinized. It also suggests that the OCIE favorably views FINRA’s analysis in Regulatory Analysis 13-45.

In my next post, I will discuss the rollover discussion in FINRA Regulatory Notice 13-45.

For the moment, though, as a word to the wise, broker-dealers and RIAs should review their procedures and policies, as well as their supervisory programs, to ensure that their advisers are complying with the expectations of the OCIE and with the provisions of Regulatory Notice 13-45.

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 #34


DOL, fiduciary, registered investment advisers

A Seminar Can Be a Fiduciary Act

This is my 34th 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.

Last week, the DOL issued its second set of FAQs on the fiduciary rule and conflict of interest exemptions. For the most part, the DOL’s answers were consistent with the industry’s understanding of the rules. However, a few were particularly interesting. For example, Question 17 asked:

Q17. Would a free dinner seminar offered by an investment adviser as a means of marketing services or investments to a group of retirees or individuals approaching retirement be a widely attended speech or conference within the meaning of the general communications provision of the Rule?

Before giving you the answer, let me explain the significance of the question. If the adviser’s comments at the meeting are considered to be “general communications,” then they are not fiduciary advice. Also, if the meeting is a “widely attended” speech or conference, the comments would be considered general and, therefore, not fiduciary advice. On the other hand, if the seminar is not considered to be “widely attended” and if the adviser’s comments “suggest” a particular course of investment action, then—probably unbeknownst to the adviser, the comments could be fiduciary investment advice. (Of course, to be fiduciary advice, the recommendation must ultimately also cause compensation to be paid to the adviser.)

The DOL answered:

The Department does not consider such free-meal seminars to be widely attended speeches or conferences within the meaning of the general communications provision. Moreover, in the Department’s view, a reasonable person attending such a seminar could view statements by the investment adviser as investment recommendations even if the statements were made to all the attendees. Whether the particular communications at the seminar could reasonably be viewed as a suggestion that the advice recipients engage in or refrain from taking a particular course of action (i.e., a recommendation) would be a matter of facts and circumstances.

In other words, in “free dinner seminars,” an adviser’s comments about investments, insurance products, advisory services, or investment strategies may be fiduciary advice. Forewarned is forearmed.

What if an adviser wants to minimize the risk of being a fiduciary at those meetings? In that case, the discussion would need to be about general market data and the adviser’s services. Keep in mind that, under the “hire me” discussion in the preamble to the fiduciary rule, an adviser can always recommend himself and his firm without becoming a fiduciary. However, the adviser cannot recommend specific products, strategies, etc., without becoming a fiduciary.

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 #33


BICE, DOL, fiduciary, registered investment advisers

Discretionary Management, Rollovers and BICE

This is my 33rd 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.

Most broker-dealers and RIA firms are familiar with the provisions of the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE) and with the fact that, as a general rule, BICE applies only to non-discretionary investment advice. But, that isn’t the end of the story. There are some situations in which discretionary management can be used for recommendations that are covered by BICE. For example, if a representative of a broker dealer or an RIA prudently recommends a distribution and IRA rollover (satisfying the Level Fee Fiduciary conditions), the IRA may be invested using discretionary investment manager. (Note, though, that the discretionary investment management must be provided by a “pure” Level Fee Fiduciary. That means that neither the adviser, the supervisory entity (e.g., the broker dealer or RIA firm), or any affiliated or related party can receive any compensation in addition to the level fee. Those prohibited additional forms of compensation would include, for example, investment management fees for proprietary investments, 12b-1 fees, or revenue sharing.)

The Department of Labor specifically addressed the issue of discretionary investment management for recommended rollovers in its recently issued FAQs — Frequently Asked Questions. Question and Answer 7 stated the following:

Q7. Is the BIC Exemption available for recommendations to roll over assets to an IRA to be managed on a going-forward basis by a discretionary investment manager?

Yes. As noted above, the BIC Exemption does not provide relief for a recommended transaction if the adviser has or exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control with respect to the transaction. However, it does provide relief for investment advice to roll over a plan account into an IRA, even if the adviser or financial institution will subsequently serve as a discretionary investment manager with respect to the IRA, as long as the adviser does not have or exercise any discretionary authority or discretionary control with respect to the decision to roll over assets of the plan to an IRA, and the other applicable conditions of the exemption are satisfied.

The moral of this story is that the DOL’s fiduciary rule and exemptions are complex. As a result, the guidance should be studied closely, and it is not enough to rely on newspaper articles and speeches to make decisions. In our discussions with broker dealers, RIAs and individual advisers, we have found that there are a number of misconceptions about the rules, including that some people believe that BICE can never be used for discretionary investment management. Obviously, the DOL language quoted in this article debunks that perception.

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

Share

The Presidential Election: Now What?


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

One of the consequences of the presidential election is that the future of the fiduciary rule (and the exemptions) is uncertain. What does that mean to advisers . . . regardless of whether they are representatives of RIAs or broker-dealers, or for that matter, if they are independent insurance agents?

The answer is that nobody knows. However, this article outlines the most likely alternatives. Those are:

  1. The rule will be killed by regulation or legislation.
  2. The rule will be implemented “as is.”
  3. The rule and the exemptions will be modified.

Only the second alternative (the “as is” option) could realistically be implemented by the current deadline of April 10. But, that’s the alternative that is, in my opinion, the least likely to happen. While it is low probability, it is high risk in the sense that broker-dealers and RIAs must be in compliance by April 10 if it happens. As a result, broker-dealers, RIA firms and IMOs need to continue working on complying with the new rules until they hear otherwise.

For either of the other two alternatives to play out in a thoughtful way, the applicability date of the rule will need to be delayed. That would be the first step of the process. If I had to guess, the delay would be until either December 31, 2017 or April 10, 2018.

Assuming there is a delay, I think that it would be a close call as to whether the rule would be killed or re-written. My gut feeling is that the fiduciary rule will be retained, but modified.

I say that for a few reasons. First, the fiduciary rule wasn’t the source of the greatest objections to the DOL’s guidance. Instead, that was the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE). Secondly, there is an argument that a rule that requires that retirement money be invested in the best interest of the investor is not, in and of itself, objectionable. In fact, many people may like that approach. Third, because of the ongoing retirement of baby boomers, many of whom are unsophisticated investors, and the rollover of their money to IRAs, there may be a perceived need to protect retirees.

On the other hand, the contrary arguments are that (1) the current system is working well and doesn’t need to be changed (and that therefore additional regulation would increase costs, without a corresponding benefit); and (2) the regulation of securities transactions should be in the hands of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and not the DOL. (One weakness with that latter argument is that insurance products, such as fixed rate annuities and fixed indexed annuities, are also sold to plans and IRAs, and the SEC doesn’t have the jurisdiction to regulate those products.)

If the SEC were to take the leadership in defining the fiduciary duty of care, there would be a uniform fiduciary definition that would apply to plans, IRAs and “non-qualified” accounts. While the conflict of interest rules for fiduciary advice to non-qualified accounts could be handled largely through disclosure, that is not the case for retirement plans and IRAs, because of the prohibited transaction rules in ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code.

To contemplate a worst case scenario, the SEC could develop a uniform fiduciary standard of care, but fiduciary advice and recommendations that involve conflicts of interest will still be prohibited by ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. In that case, the Best Interest Contract Exemption would be revoked, and there would not be any generally available exemption for commissions, 12b-1 fees, etc. Obviously, that won’t work. As a result, BICE can’t just be withdrawn. It needs to be improved. (Of course, Congress could pass a bill that would create an exemption based on disclosures alone, but that would take time. Also, the regulatory process, with input from comments and meetings between the private sector and the regulators, is better at producing detailed guidance.)

So, while the outcome is not predictable, my “best guess” is that we will end up with a rule similar to the DOL’s fiduciary standard of care and that there will be modified exemptions that are based more on disclosures and less on prohibitions.

Stay tuned.

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 #27


408(b)(2), BICE, DOL, registered investment advisers

The Definition of Compensation

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

As the readers of these articles know, one impact of the new fiduciary rule is that compensation paid to Financial Institutions and advisers must be reasonable. Reasonable, in turn, is a function of a transparent and competitive marketplace. However, where the competitive market does not work (for example, where compensation is not transparent), customary compensation may not be reasonable.

But, this article is not about reasonable compensation. Instead, the question is, what is “compensation?”

The Department of Labor partially answered that question in the fiduciary regulation:

“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, 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.

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.”

Without getting into the details of that definition, suffice it to say that, if an adviser makes a recommendation and receives money (or credits toward compensation, e.g., a bonus or a grid), that would be considered to be compensation. This concept is referred to as the “but for” test. That is, “but for” the recommendation, would the adviser have received the compensation or have been entitled to greater compensation? The “but for” method is a long-standing approach used by the Department of Labor in evaluating whether a payment is compensatory.

But, what if the payment is not monetary? What if it is non-cash, for example, gifts or trips or conference sponsorships or services? In addition to the quoted language above, the question was clearly answered in the 408(b)(2) regulation. That regulation defined compensation as:

“Compensation is anything of monetary value (for example, money, gifts, awards, and trips), . . .”

In addition, the Best Interest Contract Exemption defines third party payments as including “fees for seminars and educational programs; and any other compensation, consideration or financial benefit.”

In other words, the definition of “compensation” is not limited to cash or similar payments. Instead, it includes any item of monetary value that directly or indirectly, partially or entirely, results from recommendations of investments or insurance or that is payment for advice.

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

Share