Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #71


BICE, DOL, fiduciary, recordkeeper

Recordkeepers and Financial Wellness Programs

This is my 71st 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 my last post, Angles #70, I highlighted the three types of work that we are doing for recordkeepers as a result of the DOL’s fiduciary regulation and exemptions. This post goes into more detail about the development of financial wellness programs and the acceptance by recordkeepers of fiduciary responsibility for some of the services.

As background, the goal of financial wellness programs is to provide help to participants in achieving their short-, intermediate-, and long-term financial objectives. Recordkeepers are uniquely suited to provide those services, because of the information they already possess and because of their call centers. The services most often provided cover advice about:

  • Contributions and benefit adequacy.
  • Repayment of indebtedness.
  • Budgeting and management of expenses.
  • Savings for unexpected expenses.
  • Investing their 401(k) accounts.
  • Roll-ins to the 401(k) plan.
  • Rollovers from the 401(k) plan.

Some of that advice is fiduciary and some is not. Let’s take a closer look at that.

Clearly, recommendations about repayment of indebtedness, budgeting and management of expenses, and the accumulation of savings for unexpected expenses is not fiduciary advice. However, the recommendations must be reasonable in light of the circumstances (under the laws of most states). In addition, advice about the level of deferrals to 401(k) plans is not fiduciary advice, so long as it is based on an objective standard. For example, financial wellness programs may recommend that, as a first step, participants defer at least enough to benefit from the full match offered by the employer. In addition, those programs typically recommend at some point in the process that participants defer enough to achieve benefit adequacy at retirement (for example, a 70% income replacement ratio).

On the other hand, investment advice for participants’ accounts and recommendations of roll-ins and rollovers, is fiduciary advice. Those types of recommendations will cause the recordkeeper to become a fiduciary for those purposes. As a result, recordkeepers will need to have prudent processes in place to develop and deliver the recommendations. In addition, where the recordkeeper, or an affiliate, would make more money if a participant agrees to the recommendation, the recordkeeper will need to comply with a prohibited transaction exemption. Usually, that will the Best Interest Contract Exemption, or BICE.

For example, if a recordkeeper recommends that a participant rolls in his or her money from another plan or an IRA, the recordkeeper will need to do a prudent analysis of the relevant facts and then make a prudent and loyal recommendation to the participant. While the DOL has not provided detailed guidance about roll-ins, a reasonable approach would be for the recordkeeper to gather information about the investments, services and expenses in the IRA or old plan; the same type of information about investments, services and expenses in the recordkeeper’s plan; and information about the needs, circumstances and preferences of the participant. (As a general rule, in order to provide prudent advice, a fiduciary must gather the information that a knowledgeable person would consider relevant to making the decision. However, we are left to speculate about the specific information that would be required for a roll-in recommendation.)

In any event, recordkeepers must gather the relevant information and make prudent and loyal recommendations where they provide fiduciary advice under a wellness program. In addition, where a recordkeeper would receive additional compensation if the recommendation is accepted by the participant, the recordkeeper would need to satisfy the conditions of BICE which, in addition to the best interest standard of care, would include a prohibition on compensation in excess of a reasonable amount and would prohibit any materially misleading statements. The recordkeeper should also have written policies and procedures, together with supervision, for the development and delivery of the fiduciary recommendations.

If those conditions are satisfied, recordkeepers could provide so-called “conflicted” advice. (In this context, “conflicted” means that advice that will cause the recordkeeper or an affiliate to receive additional compensation.)

Where the financial wellness program also includes discretionary investment management of participant accounts, the issues are more complex. That is because BICE does not provide an exemption for discretionary investment management. In that case, the recordkeeper will need to either utilize an independent third party investment manager for the discretionary services or will need to use another exception (for example, the Frost Advisory Opinion or Prohibited Transaction Exemption 77-4).

Having worked on programs that offer these services to participants—and, therefore, having given it some thought, I believe that these programs will provide valuable services to employees. The financial world is increasingly complex and young employees are often burdened by substantial student loans. As a result, there is a need for help with financial decisions.

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 #70


BICE, DOL, fiduciary, plan sponsors, prudent, recordkeeper, registered investment advisers

The Fiduciary Rule and Recordkeeper Services

This is my 70th 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.

Almost all of my Angles articles have been about the impact of the fiduciary rule on advisors—representatives of broker-dealers and RIAs. However, the fiduciary rule also affects recordkeepers and the services that they offer to plans and advisors. In that regard, most of the work that we are doing for recordkeepers falls into three categories:

  • Acceptance of fiduciary responsibility by recordkeepers for “financial wellness” of participants.
  • Providing investment services and support for advisors, without becoming a fiduciary.
  • Providing investment services and support for plan sponsors, without becoming a fiduciary.

The next few Angles articles will discuss these issues in detail. This article is just to introduce the topics.

Financial Wellness

Financial wellness combines a focus on benefit adequacy with basic budgeting and financial management. Typically, it covers advice on plan participation, amounts to defer, repayment of indebtedness, budgeting and management of regular expenses, basic savings, investment advice and management of participants’ accounts, roll-ins to plans, and rollovers from plans. The objective is to help employees with financial decision-making for the short, intermediate and long terms. Where the recommendations constitute fiduciary advice under ERISA and the Best Interest Contract Exemption, the recordkeepers are accepting fiduciary status.

Investment Assistance to Advisors

The fiduciary rule includes an exception for investment services provided to “independent fiduciaries with financial expertise,” or “IFFEs.” Those fiduciaries include broker-dealers, RIAs, banks and trust companies, and insurance companies. In turn, where those financial institutions are willing to serve as fiduciaries with their advisors, recordkeepers can provide investment recommendations to the advisors without becoming fiduciaries. That is because the financial institution and the advisors are considered to be independent and knowledgeable fiduciaries who can evaluate the recordkeeper recommendations on behalf of their plan, participant and IRA clients.

Investment Assistance to Plan Sponsors

While recordkeepers have great flexibility to provide investment advice to advisors (who qualify as IFFEs) without becoming fiduciaries, the same is not true for advice to plan sponsors. (The IFFE provision also applies to some larger plans.)

However, there are some exceptions of general application for providing investment information to plan sponsors. The most useable exception is for responding to requests for proposals (RFPs) and requests for information (RFIs). But, even that exception is limited. The investment list provided by the recordkeeper can only be based on the size of the employer or the size of the plan, or both. For existing plans, it could be based on the current investment line-up.

A Prediction About Future Directions

As a prediction, recordkeepers will increasingly take advantage of the IFFE carve-out. That means that they will be providing suggested investment line-ups to qualifying IFFE advisors. The advisor will then need to evaluate the line-up and decide whether to present it to the plan sponsor. If an advisor then gives that investment line-up to the plan sponsor, the law will treat it as the advisor’s fiduciary recommendation (and, therefore, not as a recommendation by the recordkeeper).

That is the only meaningful exception for individualized non-fiduciary investment recommendations by recordkeepers. The RFP/RFI exception will also help, but it provides, by definition, a generic list of investments.

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 #69


BICE, broker-dealers, DOL, registered investment advisers

Compensation Risks for Broker-Dealers and RIAs

This is my 69th 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.

While the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE) is greatly simplified during the transition period, there is more than meets the eye, and broker-dealers and RIAs need to consider whether their practices for compensating advisors encourage advice to retirement investors that may not be in the best interest of those investors. Certain compensation practices are more risky than others. This article discuss some of the arrangements that pose the greatest risks.

As background, transition BICE requires that broker-dealers and RIAs adhere to the Impartial Conduct Standards when making investment recommendations to plans, participants, and IRA owners . . . where there is a conflict of interest. For this purpose, a prohibited conflict of interest exists where the firm or the individual advisor receives compensation from a third party (e.g., 12b-1 fees or insurance commissions) or where the compensation is received as a result of the recommendation (e.g., commissions on securities transactions). Transition BICE first applied on June 9, 2017, and based on recent DOL activity, it appears that it will continue to be the rule until June 30, 2019.

The Impartial Conduct Standards are: the best interest standard of care (basically ERISA’s prudent man rule and duty of loyalty); no more than reasonable compensation; and no materially misleading statements. However, the DOL has imposed one more requirement. In the notice of the extension of the transition rules (and, previously, in a set of FAQs), the DOL made clear that firms need to have policies, procedures and practices that ensure that advisors do not succumb to the allure of incentive compensation and give advice that is not in the best interest of the retirement investor in order to receive that compensation. (However, if the compensation is reasonable for the services rendered, it would be difficult, but not impossible, to argue that a violation had been committed.)

On a related matter, the DOL has said that, for advisors and their supervisory firms to receive the benefit of the DOL and IRS non-enforcement policies, the firms must make diligent and good faith efforts to comply with BICE. I worry that the failure to have policies, procedures and practices in place will cause the loss of protection under the non-enforcement policy.

Based on prior DOL statements and guidance, there are several types of compensation that appear to create greater risks. In those areas, firms are well-advised to have robust policies, procedures and supervision. Some of those are:

  • Recruitment compensation. The DOL has identified recruitment compensation practices that it believes create substantial incentive for advisors to make recommendations that are not in the best interest of retirement investors. Firms should familiarize themselves with that DOL guidance and design their programs accordingly.
  • Bonus arrangements. This is another area where firms should consider re-designing their compensation practices to avoid concerns identified by the DOL. For example, the DOL favors narrower increments to qualify for bonuses (or increased bonuses) and then favors that the bonuses for each of those narrower “steps” be correspondingly smaller so not to be an inappropriate incentive to give advice that favors the advisor over the retirement investors. Similarly, “waterfall” bonus arrangements are disfavored. (A waterfall arrangement is one where the increased bonus percent “waterfalls” back to cover all of the commissions for the year.)
  • Recommendations of plan distributions and rollovers. In the typical situation, the advisor will not earn anything if the participant doesn’t accept the recommendation, but the advisor will receive compensation (and, for a large rollover, perhaps significant compensation) if the retirement investor accepts the recommendation. The DOL has issued detailed guidance about what information it expects broker-dealers and RIAs to collect and examine before making recommendations to participants to take distributions and make rollovers. A firm’s policies and procedures–including supervision–should literally reflect (or even re-state) those requirements. This is not an area to take risk.

Those are just some examples . . . but now that the full exemptions are being delayed until 2019, broker-dealers and RIAs should revisit the DOL’s guidance and focus on developing compliant practices, particularly in the high risk areas.

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 #68


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

Recommendations of Distributions: The SEC Joins the Fray

This is my 68th 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.

In 2013, FINRA put its stake in the ground on recommendations of distributions and rollovers when it issued Regulatory Notice 13-45. The DOL has, with the development of its fiduciary regulation over the past few years—which became applicable on June 9 of this year—taken a similar, but more demanding position. However, the DOL’s guidance has more teeth than FINRA’s, because it is backed by a standard of care—the prudent man rule and duty of loyalty—and by the prohibited transaction rules in ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. Recently, the SEC has joined the fray with the issuance of its ReTIRE initiative and its examination priorities over the past few years.

The SEC has completed the first phase of its ReTIRE initiative. This Angles article reports on the observations from the first phase and the current examination priorities.

Needless to say, recommendations and rollovers are issues of concern to the SEC and are, in fact, being examined. RIAs and broker-dealers who do not have well-developed practices and documentation for recommending rollovers and distributions may be surprised when the SEC raises those issues and faults their practices. However, my belief is that compliance with the DOL’s best interest standard of care (that is, the prudent man rule and the duty of loyalty) will satisfy the standard of care and conflicts of interest concerns of both the DOL and the SEC. As a result, broker-dealers and RIAs should focus on compliance with the DOL rules (especially in light of the SEC’s examination positions). Additionally, broker-dealers and RIAs should seriously consider affirmatively disclosing the conflicts of interest inherent in recommending distributions and rollovers.

Here is some additional information about the SEC examinations and their observations:

  • The SEC has conducted over 250 examinations under the ReTIRE initiative.
  • Specific areas of concern have been uncovered during the examinations. Those include:
  • Recommendations to investors/retirees of inappropriate share classes.
  • Misleading marketing materials regarding offerings and rollovers.
  • Lack of documentation to support the reasonableness of recommendations (including rollovers).
  • Vague or omitted disclosures related to fees, conflicts and services of affiliates.
  • Misleading touting of credentials.
  • Supervision and compliance breakdowns.

We expect that the SEC’s examinations will continue to focus on issues related to retirees and older investors, including distribution and rollover issues.

As an observation, in a recent SEC examination of a broker-dealer, the report specifically referenced practices which could violate FINRA Regulatory Notice 13-45. As a result, now is a good time for broker-dealers to review their practices, including advisor education, under 13-45, as well as the related policies, procedures and supervision.

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 #67


BICE, DOL, fiduciary, prudent, SEC

Fiduciary Rule: From the DOL to the SEC

This is my 67th 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.

It now seems certain that the DOL will extend the applicability date of the final exemptions to July 1, 2019, or thereabouts. In any event, it will be a long extension. As a practical matter, that means that the transition rules under the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE) and Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24 will be extended until June 30, 2019 . . . in other words, the transition rules will continue until the applicability of revised final exemptions.

The extended time will be used for the DOL and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to cooperate in the development of new fiduciary rules by the SEC (and perhaps changes to the DOL’s fiduciary regulation) and for revised exemptions to be issued by the DOL for BICE and 84-24.

However, that coordination will probably not produce rules as favorable as some expect nor as unfavorable as others anticipate. Let me explain that comment.

The DOL’s new fiduciary regulation—which became fully applicable on June 9 of this year—defines the recommendations that cause an advisor and his or her supervisory entity to be fiduciaries. For example, if an advisor recommends an investment, an investment manager, an investment strategy or policy, a withdrawal from an IRA or a distribution and rollover from a plan, that is already fiduciary advice.

Since that’s a regulation, the DOL can amend it. However, I doubt that any of those recommendations will be removed from the category of fiduciary advice. On the other hand, an amended regulation could expand the circumstances in which selling is allowed without becoming fiduciary advice (perhaps with enhanced disclosures of non-fiduciary status) and could require a more personalized recommendation, e.g., a recommendation that is individualized to a plan, participant or IRA owner. However, I doubt that the changes will substantially alter the current landscape.

The second fiduciary issue is the standard of care—the dual duties of prudence and loyalty. For advice to plans and participants, those duties are statutory. They cannot be changed by regulation. And, they cannot be changed by the SEC. Only Congress can amend the law (and this Congress seems to have a difficult time doing anything).

However, the statutory prudent man rule and duty of loyalty only apply to advice to ERISA plans and their participants. For IRAs, those duties (which are referred to as the “best interest standard of care”) are imposed by the exemptions, for example, BICE. (As an aside, that means that advisors and their firms only need to comply with the best interest standard of care for IRAs if they are committing prohibited transactions by, e.g., receiving variable compensation or third party compensation. So, for example, a level fee advisor to an IRA would not be committing a prohibited transaction and, therefore, would not need to comply with the conditions of an exemption, e.g., the best interest standard of care.) However, the DOL can amend exemptions. So, BICE and 84-24 could be changed to a standard other than the best interest standard of care. Having said that, though, there may not be significant changes. If you look at the best interest standard, it requires that the advisor and his or her firm act prudently and loyally. It’s possible that the SEC could adopt the ERISA rule as the standard for retail advice for broker-dealers and RIAs. In any event, it’s difficult to imagine a new SEC standard that is much different than prudence and loyalty.

With regard to disclosures for exemptions, it’s possible—perhaps even likely—that the DOL will follow the SEC’s lead. Before the DOL does that, though, it must make an independent finding that the SEC’s disclosures are adequately protective of the interests of plans, participants and IRA owners. In that regard, the DOL needs to consider the effectiveness of the disclosures, as well as the facts to be disclosed. Nonetheless, I believe that the SEC will be leader on disclosures and the DOL will make every effort to use the SEC disclosures as conditions of the prohibited transaction exemptions. That will be more than is required under the transition exemptions, but it will probably be significantly less than is required under the current versions of the final exemptions.

We are working with clients to develop their strategies and comments for the SEC. I expect to have additional insights as those develop.

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 #66


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

Concerns About 408(b)(2) Disclosures

This is my 66th 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.

Because of the change in the definition of fiduciary advice (which applied on June 9, 2017), all advisors to retirement plans need to review their prior 408(b)(2) disclosures to see if changes are necessary. That particularly applies to broker-dealers and life insurance brokers and agents.

The first level of review should be to determine whether their prior 408(b)(2) disclosures to ERISA retirement plans affirmatively stated that they were not fiduciaries to the plans that they served. If so, those broker-dealers, insurance brokers and agents need to send out new 408(b)(2) disclosures that affirmatively disclose their new-found fiduciary status (assuming that their advisors became fiduciaries under the new rule, which would ordinarily be the case). However, if the old disclosures were silent about fiduciary status or non-status, the prior disclosures would only need to be reviewed to determine if they adequately describe the services that would be considered to be fiduciary advice. Those services would include, for example, making investment recommendations, referring to other investment advisors or managers, or providing selective lists of investments. (Actually, the definition is much broader, and also includes suggestions of investments, investment policies, or investment strategies.)

Also, the review should include consideration of whether the 408(b)(2) statements adequately disclose compensation. I have been reviewing 408(b)(2) disclosures for a number of broker-dealers. As a part of that, I noticed that compensation was often described in ranges, sometimes very broad ranges. That reminded me of the language in the preamble to the 408(b)(2) regulation, which said:

“A few commenters also asked whether compensation or costs may be disclosed in ranges, for example by a range of possible basis points. The Department believes that disclosure of expected compensation in the form of known ranges can be a ‘‘reasonable’’ method for purposes of the final rule. However, such ranges must be reasonable under the circumstances surrounding the service and compensation arrangement at issue. To ensure that covered service providers communicate meaningful and understandable compensation information to responsible plan fiduciaries whenever possible, the Department cautions that more specific, rather than less specific, compensation information is preferred whenever it can be furnished without undue burden.” [Emphasis added.]

I leave it to the reader to decide whether the ranges in the following types of disclosures are narrow enough. Keep in mind, though, that the purpose of the 408(b)(2) disclosures is to allow the responsible plan fiduciaries to determine (i) whether the compensation paid to the advisor and affiliates is reasonable in light of the services being rendered, and (ii) the nature and extent of the conflicts of interest. With that in mind, do you think that the following types of disclosures are narrow enough to provide information that allows the plan fiduciaries to make those determinations?

  • For mutual funds, the broker-dealer may receive between 0% to 10% front-end commissions.
  • As ongoing trailing commissions, the compensation may range from 0% to 2% per year.
  • The compensation for managed accounts will not exceed 2.5% per year.

Since the test for evaluating those statements is one of “reasonableness,” each reader can form his or her own opinions. But, keep in mind the dual purpose of the disclosures. Then, think about whether the disclosures adequately inform the responsible plan fiduciaries, so that they can make prudent decisions on behalf of their plans and their participants.

Needless to say, I am concerned that some service providers may be making disclosures that don’t satisfy the standards. As a result, I suggest that broker-dealers, RIAs, and insurance agents and brokers review their disclosures to make sure that they are comfortable that the necessary information is being provided to plan fiduciaries.

Forewarned is 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 #64


BICE, DOL, fiduciary, General, prudent

What Does the Best Interest Standard of Care Require?

This is my 64th 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 best interest standard of care is found, among other places, in the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE). The standard is a combination of ERISA’s prudent man rule and duty of loyalty. In fact, in the prudence portion of the definition, the only change is that the words “prudent man” are changed to “prudent person.” But, that begs the question, what does the prudent person rule require?

Generally speaking, it requires the following:

  • A prudent process by a hypothetical knowledgeable person who obtains and evaluates the information needed to make a careful and skillful decision.
  • With regard to investments, it requires that fiduciary advisors adhere to generally accepted investment theories. DOL guidance is clear that, in interpreting the best interest standard of care, fiduciaries are to look to ERISA’s history. And, ERISA’s history confirms that generally accepted investment theories are to be used. Again, though, what does that mean? Among other things, it means that IRA owners and plan participants should be advised to invest in a portfolio with asset allocation based on their needs, objectives and circumstances. The DOL explained in the preamble to its participant investment advice regulation (§2550.408g-1) that:

“After careful consideration of all the comments on the issue, the Department does not believe it has a sufficient basis for determining appropriate changes to the generally accepted investment theory standard. While several commenters described theories and practices they believe to be generally accepted, there did not appear to be any consensus among them, with the exception of modern portfolio theory,22 which the Department believes is already reflected in the rule’s reference to investment theories that take into account the historic returns of different asset classes over defined periods of time.

22This is consistent with a survey of literature on generally accepted investment theories prepared for the Department. See Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP, Generally Accepted Investment Theories (July 11, 2007) (unpublished, on file with the Department of Labor).”

  • It is hard to imagine that broader concepts of diversification would not also be considered to be generally accepted investment theories. For example, even though portfolios may be diversified among asset classes, there is an argument that the investments in each asset class should also be diversified. While this is an issue for investment experts, and not for lawyers, it seems fairly obvious that diversification by asset class and within asset classes would be, at the least, good risk management. Keep in mind that IRAs are retirement vehicles. As a result, IRAs should be invested in a manner consistent with retirement investing, which suggests, among other things, the avoidance of large losses. That is particularly true for older IRA investors.

However, in the final analysis, the retirement investor gets to decide how his money will be invested. While advisors may be obligated to recommend investment strategies that are consistent with generally accepted investment theories, a retirement investor can override those recommendations and direct that the account be invested differently. In that case, a fiduciary advisor is well-advised to obtain written directions from the retirement investor about how the investor wants the account to be invested. Armed with that direction the fiduciary advisor’s duty is to provide advice within the limits imposed by the retirement investor.

The application of fiduciary, or best interest, concepts to individual retirement investors will be new for many advisors. As a result, advisors, and their supervisory entities, should focus on the fiduciary requirements for a prudent process and for the application of general accepted investment theories.

Forewarned is 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

Inside the Beltway October 12, 2017


Announcement

Please join me and my colleague, Brad Campbell, on October 12, 2017 (9:00 am pacific time/ noon eastern time) for the 22nd session of Inside the Beltway, a quarterly audiocast sponsored jointly by Drinker Biddle and Natixis.

During this session of Beltway we will discuss:

  • The likelihood of a final rule extending the applicability date of the most important fiduciary exemptions to July 1, 2019.
  • What’s next with the DOL and SEC for revising the fiduciary rule and the exemptions?
  • The current focus of SEC examinations under the ReTIRE Initiative.
  • The likely fiduciary claims against broker-dealers in FINRA arbitrations.

Joining us for this session will be Drinker Biddle partners Sandy Grannum, who will discuss possible fiduciary claims in FINRA arbitrations, and Jim Lundy, who will speak about the OCIE ReTIRE initiative and provide a brief update on the SEC’s work on a fiduciary rule.

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