Skip to content

Broker-Dealer Regulation & Litigation Insights

  • About Us
  • Contributors
  • Resources
  • Presentations
  • Visit the Faegre Drinker website

Fiduciary Rule Myths

MYTH:  “Advisors must recommend the best available investment.”

We recently pointed out that under the DOL fiduciary rule, it’s a myth that advisors have to recommend the lowest cost investment. They don’t.

Here’s another myth about investment recommendations that isn’t true: advisors have to recommend the best investment to their customers. Presumably, this comes up because of the Impartial Conduct Standards in the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE). One of the requirements in those Standards is that a recommendation be in the best interest of the customer. This best interest requirement may lead some to think that advisors have to meet an essentially impossible standard. As with a lowest-cost recommendation, however, a mandate to recommend the best investment is a myth…it just isn’t true. Even the DOL has said so:

“…the Department also confirms that the Best Interest standard does not impose an unattainable obligation on Advisers and Financial Institutions to somehow identify the single ‘best’ investment for the Retirement Investor out of all the investments in the national or international marketplace, assuming such advice were even possible.” (Preamble to the BIC Exemption, 81 Fed. Reg. 21002, at page 21029)

(The DOL references “Advisers and Financial Institutions” here because both the individual advisor who deals with the customer and the broker-dealer are fiduciaries for purposes of an investment recommendation.)

To be entitled to compensation, broker-dealers and their advisors who work with plans and IRAs need to comply with the BICE conditions that are also in effect. This means adhering to the Impartial Conduct Standards, which require that:

  • Compensation paid to the broker-dealer and advisor is reasonable.
  • Recommendations must be in the best interest of the customer.
  • Communications with the customer may not be misleading.

The “best interest” requirement says that the recommendation must (i) be prudent, (ii) take into account relevant information about the customer, and (iii) put the customer’s interests above those of the broker-dealer and the advisor.

Looking at each of these requirements, to be prudent, the advisor and the broker-dealer must engage in a prudent process to develop investment recommendations. The customer information is similar, if not identical, to FINRA’s “know your customer” rules. And the final requirement – the “duty of loyalty” – mandates that the broker-dealer and the advisor put the financial interests of the retirement investor ahead of their own. (However, that does not override the ability to receive reasonable compensation.)

The DOL explained the best interest standard in the context of investment recommendations this way:

“…the best interest standard set out in the exemption, incorporates two fundamental and well established fiduciary obligations: The duties of prudence and loyalty. Thus, the advice fiduciary’s obligation under the Best Interest standard is to give advice that adheres to professional standards of prudence, and to put the Retirement Investor’s financial interests in the driver’s seat, rather than the competing interests of the Adviser or other parties.” (BIC Preamble at page 21029)

To understand “best interest,” the DOL has said that firms and advisors should look to court cases and the DOL guidance on the meaning of the ERISA prudent man rule. The cases and guidance say that in developing a prudent recommendation, advisors and broker-dealers need to focus on process:

  • Gather relevant information about the customer—this should be part of the suitability analysis in any case, though a prudent or best-interest process requires more than the suitability standard. Gather information about the product or investment strategy being considered.
  • Assess the information carefully, taking into account the purpose for which the investment is being made (e.g., long-term growth or retirement income).
  • Make a recommendation that is “informed” (by the information) and “reasoned” (based on the assessment).
  • Remember to document the process in case you need to prove compliance later on.

This is what it takes to make a prudent fiduciary decision. Essentially, by following these steps, an advisor should be able to make a best interest recommendation for the customer.

As the DOL said, recommending the “best” investment is an unattainable standard—a myth. Instead, the best interest standard says that the advisor and broker-dealer have to give careful consideration to relevant information about the investment and the customer, and set aside their own interests, in making a recommendation. They have to be prudent, not perfect.

Subscribe and Receive Alerts to New Articles

SUBSCRIBE
February 16, 2018
Written by: Bruce Ashton and Fred Reish
Category: Best Interest Contract Exemption, Best Interest Standard of Care, Compensation Issues, DOL Fiduciary Rule, Impartial Conduct Standards, Investment Recommendation, Reasonable Fees, Recommendation

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: SEC’s 2018 Exam Priorities – Worth the Wait
Next Next post: SEC Announces Share Class Selection Disclosure Initiative

Subscribe to Alerts

Recent Posts

  • The DOL’s Fiduciary Interpretation and Exemption: Impact on Rollover Recommendations
  • The SEC’s CCO Guidance Month
  • Broker-Dealer Regulation & Litigation Digest – Fall 2020
  • Recent State Fiduciary Duty Developments: Alabama and Rhode Island Issue Regulations
  • Documenting Rollover Recommendations: The DOL and SEC Requirements

Categories

  • 12b-1 Fees
  • 3270
  • 3280
  • 3290
  • Anti-Money Laundering
  • Arbitration
  • BD
  • Best Execution
  • Best Interest Contract Exemption
  • Best Interest Standard of Care
  • Business Continuity Planning
  • Churning
  • Class Certification
  • Compensation Issues
  • Compliance
  • Concurrent jurisdiction
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • Congress
  • Covered class actions
  • Covered securities
  • Credit
  • Cryptocurrencies
  • Customer Due Diligence Rule
  • Customer Protection
  • Cybersecurity
  • Dark Pools
  • Data Integrity
  • DOL Fiduciary Rule
  • Elder Abuse
  • Enforcement
  • Event Study
  • Examination
  • Exchange-Traded Funds (“ETF”)
  • exemptions
  • Fair Pricing
  • Fees
  • Fiduciary
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Financial Services
  • FinCEN
  • FINRA
  • FINRA 2018 Annual Regulatory and Examination Priorities Letter
  • FINRA 360
  • FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure 12204
  • FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure 13204
  • FINRA Notice 13-45
  • FINRA Regulatory Notice 16-25
  • FINRA Rule 12200
  • FINRA Rule 13200
  • FINRA Rule 2111
  • FINRA Rule 2165
  • FINRA Rule 2232
  • FINRA Rule 3310(c)
  • FINRA Rule 4210
  • FINRA Rule 4512
  • FINRA Summary Report
  • Fixed Income
  • Fraud
  • Goldman v. City of Reno, 747 F.3d 733(2014)
  • Goldman v. Golden Empire Schools Financing, 767 F.3d 210(2014)
  • IA
  • Impartial Conduct Standards
  • In the Matter of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Respondent (AWC 2009020188101/January 25, 2012)
  • Initial Coin Offerings
  • Investment Recommendation
  • Investor
  • IRA
  • Liquidity
  • Manipulation
  • Margin
  • Market Access
  • Market Access Controls
  • Mortgage
  • Mutual Funds
  • New FINRA Rule
  • OCIE
  • Office of the Solicitor General
  • Options
  • Outside Activities
  • Outside Business Activities (“OBA”)
  • Policies and Procedures
  • Price Impact
  • Private Securities Transactions (“PST”)
  • Private Securities Transactions of an Associated Person”
  • Prohibited Transactions
  • Prudence
  • Quantitative Suitability
  • Reading Health v. JP Morgan, No. 16-4234 (3d Cir. Aug. 7, 2018)
  • Reasonable Fees
  • Recommendation
  • Regulation Best Interest
  • Regulation SHO
  • Regulatory Notice 18-13
  • Retirement Account
  • Risk
  • Rollovers
  • SEC
  • SEC 2018 National Exam Program Examination Priorities
  • SEC Reg BI
  • SEC RIA Interpretation
  • Securities Act of 1933
  • Securities Class Action
  • Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA)
  • Senior Safe Act
  • Seniors
  • Service Providers
  • Short Sales
  • Suitability
  • supervision
  • Supreme Court
  • Surveillance
  • Technology Governance
  • UBS v. Carilion Clinic, 706 F.3d 319(2013)
  • Uncategorized
  • Unit Investment Trusts (“UIT”)
  • Verification of Assets and Liabilities

archives

  • 2021
    • January 2021
  • 2020
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
  • 2019
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
  • 2018
    • December 2018
    • October 2018
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
  • 2017
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
  • About Us
  • Contributors
  • Resources
  • Presentations
  • Visit the Faegre Drinker website

© 2021 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved. Lawyer Advertising.
Privacy Policy

We use cookies to improve your experience with our website. By browsing our site, you are agreeing to the use of cookies. For more information about how we use cookies, please review our privacy policy and cookie policy. OK
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Non-necessary

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.