On September 9, 2019, the states of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Mexico and Oregon, and the District of Columbia (collectively, the States) filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the SEC challenging Reg BI. By way of background, the SEC finalized Regulation Best Interest: The Broker-Dealer Standard of Conduct (Reg BI or the Final Rule) on June 5, 2019. The SEC also issued a final rule regarding Form CRS and two final Commission Interpretations. The implementation date for Reg BI and Form CRS is June 30, 2020.
The standard of care for rollover recommendations has been top of mind for broker-dealers beginning with the issuance of the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) now vacated fiduciary rule, and more recently with the SEC’s Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI), raising the question of the extent to which the SEC standard of care for rollover recommendations differs from the DOL’s.
The standards appear to be essentially the same – a requirement to act in the customer’s best interest (keeping in mind that Reg BI will not be applicable until June 30, 2020, while the DOL rules are applicable now). However, there are two major differences:
On June 5, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved the Regulation Best Interest Final Package, the new disclosure requirements that accompany the financial services industry’s new Regulation Best Interest standard of care. In light of the significance of Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI) for the financial services industry, Drinker Biddle & Reath’s Best Interest Compliance Team is publishing a series of articles on the SEC’s finalized “Reg BI Package” of rules and guidance.
One of the four parts of that package is Form CRS − a mandate that broker-dealers and investment advisers with retail investors (natural persons, trusts or entities representing natural persons) provide a two-page relationship summary disclosing information about their firm before a new client enters an investment adviser’s agreement or engages the services of a broker-dealer, or in the case of an existing client when there is any material change in the nature and scope of the relationship.
This disclosure must be concise, direct and made in plain language, taking into consideration the level of financial experience of retail investors. The specifics of the disclosures made to the retail investor are prescribed by CRS Form 17-page Instructions, including what must be disclosed − length, order, and even in some circumstances the wording.
It would be impossible to summarize the lengthy requirements here; suffice it to say there are eight items mandated for coverage:
Item 1: Introduction
Item 2: Relationships and Services
Item 3: Standard of Conduct
Item 4: Summary of Fees and Costs
Item 5: Comparisons to be provided by standalone investment advisers and standalone broker-dealers
Item 6: Conflicts of Interest
Item 7: Additional Information
Item 8: Key Questions to Ask
Also, there are 10 questions, “conversation starters” that the SEC requires be placed in a different font to distinguish them from other information. The Instructions direct that the questions that do not apply to a particular firm should not be used and additional questions that are frequently asked of a particular firm may be included, not to exceed 14 questions. If the Form CRS is presented electronically it may include hyperlinks to information described in the firm’s disclosures; therefore, it is actually larger in scope than it first appears.
The content of the disclosures must be filed on Form CRS through IARD by investment advisers and through EDGAR by broker-dealers. Firms also should note that Form CRS’s disclosure requirements are in addition to, not instead of, firms’ disclosure and reporting obligations under federal and state law and self-regulatory organizations’ rules and procedures.
FINRA reminds its Members of their obligation to meet the Form CRS delivery obligations and provides them with SEC Staff names and telephone numbers for assistance.
NOTE For a more complete discussion of the Form CRS guidance, read “Reg BI, Form CRS: The TARDIS of Disclosure Requirements.”
Read a summary of the Final Package in our article “The Final Reg BI Package: What to Know and What’s Next”.
Justice Brandeis once famously said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Perhaps, but in FINRA’s purview, settlements might be better. Along these lines, FINRA recently announced that it has reached final settlements in its nearly four-year initiative to obtain restitution from member firms that allegedly failed to waive mutual fund sales charges. These firms also allegedly failed to properly supervise the sale of mutual funds that offer sales charge waivers. The settlements were substantial: 56 member firms agreed to pay $89 million in restitution for 110,000 charitable and retirement accounts.
It often is said that “it’s not the crime, but the cover-up” that is the most damaging to someone alleged to have committed misconduct. In a recent FINRA enforcement action, however, the cover-up was the crime. On July 3, 2019, FINRA barred Vincent J. Storms, a now-former Raymond James & Associates (RJA) compliance associate, for particularly egregious falsifications of RJA’s branch audit data that violated FINRA Rules 2010 and 4511.
At RJA, Mr. Storms was responsible for auditing branch offices and performing follow-up work resulting from the audits. As part of the audits, RJA sent an email to each registered representative requesting that they complete a questionnaire that gathered information such as whether the representative had any undisclosed outside business activities or undisclosed securities accounts at other broker-dealers, and whether the branch used third-party vendors to store data.
The issue of “best interest” continues to be a hot topic in the states and trade groups, though one state has fallen out of the running…at least for now.
The State of Massachusetts has two pending initiatives. The first is a regulation proposed by the state Securities Division requiring investment advisers to create a table of fees for their services. The comment period on the proposal ended in May, and we await further action. In a more recent development, the Division is considering a regulation that would apply a fiduciary standard on broker-dealers, investment advisers and their representatives. The proposal was released in mid-June, and the comment period ends on July 26. Under the proposal, enforcement would be vested in the Securities Division, and it would not create a private right of action.
On the heels of the SEC’s recent approval of the “Reg BI Package,” on June 26, 2019 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would prevent enforcement of Reg BI. Specifically, Rep. Maxine Waters included a last minute amendment to an appropriations bill that would prevent any funds from being used to “implement, administer [or] enforce” Reg BI.
While the bill was comfortably passed in the House, its prospects to pass in the Senate seem unlikely. Senators will have the opportunity to introduce their own version, which will then need to be reconciled with the House’s. As always, we will continue to closely monitor any developments concerning Reg BI, and will publish any updates.
To nobody’s great surprise, on June 5, the SEC approved the “Reg BI Package,” which includes a series of new standards governing the fiduciary responsibilities of broker-dealers and investment advisers. The approved items consisted of the Regulation Best Interest – Standard of Conduct for Broker-Dealers; Form CRS Relationship Summary; Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers; and Interpretation of “Solely Incidental,” all of which seem likely to have considerable impact on the industry going forward.
Drinker Biddle’s Best Interest Compliance Team issued an alert summarizing the June 5th meeting, certain statements made by the commissioners, and examining the potential effects of the new standards.
Read the full client alert.
On June 5, the SEC will hold an Open Meeting to consider whether to adopt certain measures to reform retail investment standards. In this alert, the Best Interest Compliance Team provides a brief preview of the key topics and potential concerns about the proposed standards.
Read the full client alert.
We have updated our State Fiduciary and Best Interest Developments chart to reflect regulatory changes in New Jersey. The New Jersey Bureau of Securities has proposed a rule that will establish a fiduciary standard for broker-dealers and clarify the standard applicable to investment advisors. The comment period on the proposal ends on June 14; we anticipate that the regulation will become effective later in 2019. (Details of the proposal may be found in the chart.) The proposal is part of New Jersey governor Murphy’s aim to provide strong consumer protections. That objective also led Gov. Murphy in the last few days to veto legislation that would have eliminated a fiduciary standard for insurance producers.
We are also delighted to announce the expansion of the Drinker Biddle Best Interest Compliance Team by the addition of a team of attorneys with experience in litigation involving retirement and health benefits, especially in defending class action lawsuits. The new members of the Team are: Kimberly A. Jones, James F. Jorden, Glenn Merten, Gregory Ossi, Waldemar J. Pflepsen, Jr. and Michael A. Valerio.
Please contact us if you have questions about state developments or other issues that affect your business.