Skip to content

Broker-Dealer Regulation & Litigation Insights

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

Fiduciary Status for the Unwary

If you thought that avoiding fiduciary status would be a slam-dunk after the “new” DOL fiduciary advice rule was vacated, think again. The DOL’s old fiduciary regulation is back and it casts an unexpectedly wide net.

Let’s start with the background. The reinstated fiduciary definition says that a broker-dealer and its advisor (a “broker”) are fiduciaries to a plan if a functional five-part test is satisfied: (1) the broker provides advice about investments for a fee or other compensation, (2) on a regular basis, (3) under a mutual understanding, (4) that the advice will form a primary basis for the plan’s decisions, and (5) that the advice is individualized based upon the plan’s particular needs. For this purpose, a “plan” includes not only an ERISA plan, but also an IRA. (In the context of IRAs, being a fiduciary under the five-part test does not itself implicate a standard of care, but does apply to the applicability of certain prohibited transactions.)


The reinstated fiduciary regulation, as with the vacated rule, applies to nondiscretionary investment advice. Discretion over investments has always resulted in fiduciary status. However, our focus is on nondiscretionary investment advice.

Since the determination of whether a broker-dealer is a fiduciary is “functional,” that is, based on conduct, courts consider all of the facts in the relationship in determining whether the five-part fiduciary advice test is met. This includes the terms of the service agreement between the parties, as well as the conduct of the broker and the client’s reliance on the broker’s suggestions. Relevant factors may include: the regularity of the advice; the length of the relationship; the broker’s knowledge about the plan client; the client’s expertise in financial matters; whether the client is receiving any other investment advice for the plan assets; and whether the client has ever rejected the broker’s recommendations.

For example, a court found that a broker was a fiduciary to a pooled (non-participant directed) plan under the following facts:

  • The broker recommended plan investments;
  • The broker met with the plan client on a regular basis to review the plan’s investments and to rebalance the portfolio;
  • The client never failed to accept a recommendation – which evidenced that the broker’s recommendation was a primary basis for the plan’s decision;
  • The plan trustee gave the broker regular access to information regarding its portfolio so the broker could tailor the advice to the needs of the plan, and the broker periodically rebalanced the portfolio and adjusted the asset allocation; and
  • The broker received commissions and other compensation for its services.

While that case involved a pooled retirement plan, it’s easy to see how a court could make a similar finding in the context of a 401(k) or other participant-directed plan, where the broker regularly provides recommendations with respect to the plan’s menu of investment options.

One consequence of the “facts and circumstances” approach to determining fiduciary status is that the written terms of a brokerage agreement will generally not be dispositive. On one hand, contractual language stating that a broker will not act as a fiduciary may help bolster an argument that the required “mutual understanding” does not exist. But, a court could still find that such an understanding does in fact exist if the plan sponsor customer consistently and continuously follows specific recommendations from the broker, and those recommendations are reasonably tailored for the plan’s needs.

What all of this means is that brokers who do not intend to act as fiduciaries need to consider not only their written service arrangement terms, but also the scope and nature of advice services they provide. Some broker-dealers may assume that if they suggest a list of, say, three investments, they won’t fall under the five-part test because they aren’t recommending a single investment. Unfortunately, that is not a safe assumption. Even though the customer needs to make a selection, the broker-dealer can still be seen as having made a recommendation. The same would be true if the broker-dealer recommends an investment strategy. On the other hand, if a broker makes a recommendation – even of a specific investment – at the outset of the relationship with the customer and then makes other recommendations on an episodic (i.e., not quarterly or annually) basis thereafter, the broker may be able to show that the arrangement does not meet the “regular basis” requirement.

In short, brokers need to understand how the five-part test functions and adapt their service models accordingly if they wish to avoid fiduciary status as to plan and IRA customers.

The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.

Subscribe and Receive Alerts to New Articles

SUBSCRIBE
December 19, 2018
Written by: Joan M. Neri and Joshua Waldbeser
Category: Compliance, DOL Fiduciary Rule, Fiduciary, IRA, Recommendation, Service Providers

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: A Summary of FINRA’s 2018 Report on Examination Findings
Next Next post: The Continuing Convergence of Retail and Retirement Regulatory Oversight

Subscribe to Alerts

Recent Posts

  • New Year’s Priorities: FINRA Releases its 2023 Report on its Examination and Risk Monitoring Program
  • Managing IRAs: Charging Different Fees for Different Investments
  • FINRA Is Conducting a Targeted Exam of “Crypto Assets”
  • Recent State Fiduciary and Best Interest Developments
  • Rollover Recommendations – Do the SEC and DOL Requirements Align?

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

  • 2023
    • February 2023
    • January 2023
  • 2022
    • December 2022
    • November 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • February 2022
    • January 2022
  • 2021
    • December 2021
    • November 2021
    • October 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 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

© 2023 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.
SAVE & ACCEPT