Skip to content

Broker-Dealer Regulation & Litigation Insights

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

Why Fiduciary Status Still Matters in a Post-Fiduciary Rule World: A Look at Prohibited Transactions And Compensation

In a previous post, we discussed why broker-dealers and their representatives will likely still be fiduciaries to ERISA plans and IRA investors in many cases despite the DOL Fiduciary Rule’s impending death (we say “impending” because, while the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in mid-March vacates the Fiduciary Rule in its entirety, the court’s official order implementing this decision has yet to be issued). To review, this is because broker-dealers and their representatives often satisfy all the prongs of the soon-to-be reinstated 1975 fiduciary regulation’s “Five-Part Test” defining when investment recommendations rise to the level of “fiduciary” advice. Previous industry assumptions that brokers and other “sellers” of investments generally were not fiduciaries under the 1975 regulation should no longer be relied upon. In this post, we’ll examine how the Fiduciary Rule’s impending demise will affect prohibited transaction and compensation issues for broker-dealers in light of their likely continuing status as fiduciaries.

Fiduciary status matters to broker-dealers for two primary reasons. First, fiduciary advisors to plans and participants must satisfy the duties of prudence and loyalty imposed under ERISA. Second, fiduciary advisors to plans and IRA investors are subject to the self-dealing and other prohibited transaction rules under ERISA and the Tax Code. These rules are very broad—an advisor cannot through its fiduciary advice influence its own or its affiliates’ compensation, and cannot receive third-party compensation in connection with its advice. In other words, the general rule is that the advisor and the broker-dealer must receive compensation that does not vary depending on the investments selected by the advice recipient, and generally cannot receive commissions or other third-party compensation like 12b-1 fees. While there are some exceptions to these broad general rules called “prohibited transaction exemptions,” they apply only to certain specified transactions, and they have their own conditions that must be satisfied. So what does this mean as a practical matter in a post-DOL Fiduciary Rule world?

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling will vacate the Rule in toto, which means that all of the new prohibited transaction exemptions disappear as well, including the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BIC Exemption) and the Principal Transactions Exemption. This presents a legal quandary for some broker-dealers. Many of them will still be fiduciaries under the 1975 Rule, but the variable or third-party compensation they received while relying on the BIC Exemption will no longer be permitted. Even though they were fully complying with the DOL Fiduciary Rule and the BIC Exemption, there may not be another exemption they can use once the 5th Circuit decision goes into effect.

Here are several specific examples of broker-dealer compensation that was exempted under the BIC Exemption but which likely will be a prohibited transaction once the Fiduciary Rule is vacated:

• Where the broker-dealer receives different amounts of compensation from mutual fund A than from mutual fund B (even if the registered representative is paid a level fee).
• Where the representative receives different commission amounts from different share classes of investments that he or she recommends to an IRA owner.
• Where the representative recommends a principal transaction with the broker-dealer.
• Where the representative receives a different fee or commission from different products (annuity vs. mutual fund, etc.).

Rollover transactions present a special case. As explained in our prior post, previous DOL guidance on rollovers will again be applicable. Advisory Opinion 2005-23A explains that a person who is not already a plan fiduciary can recommend a rollover without becoming a fiduciary (likely because rollover advice is a one-time transaction and thus the advice is not provided “regularly”). But the same guidance also provides that a fiduciary advisor to a plan is a fiduciary when recommending a rollover to a participant in that plan. And, other than the BIC Exemption, there is no existing exemption that clearly provides relief where a fiduciary advisor recommends a rollover to an IRA account that will pay the advisor more compensation than the advisor received from the plan.

Fortunately, on May 7, 2018, the DOL issued Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2018-02, which provides some relief in the form of a temporary enforcement policy for advice fiduciaries. The FAB, which is binding on both the DOL and IRS, provides that prohibited transaction claims will not be brought against advice fiduciaries who “are working diligently and in good faith” to satisfy the impartial conduct standards set forth in the BIC Exemption and the Principal Transactions Exemption. It also goes on to state that advice fiduciaries may rely on other still-available exemptions (for example, PTE 86-128 as to brokerage commissions, or PTE 77-4 as to affiliated mutual funds), but that the DOL will not treat an adviser’s failure to rely upon such other exemptions as resulting in a violation of the prohibited transaction rules if the adviser meets the terms of this enforcement policy.

The FAB applies from June 9, 2017, (the Fiduciary Rule’s “go-live” date) until further guidance is issued. And while there are aspects of the FAB that are a bit unclear, it appears that fiduciary advisors will be protected from DOL enforcement action and IRS excise taxes with respect to “conflicted” recommendations as long as advice satisfies the impartial conduct standards:

1. The advice is in the “best interest” of the plan or IRA investor.
2. Compensation to the firm, advisor and their affiliates does not exceed a reasonable level (for principal transactions, a “best execution” standard applies instead).
3. No misleading statements are made to the plan or IRA investor.

Firms and advisors are cautioned that the FAB does not preclude the possibility of private lawsuits by ERISA investors, claims from IRA investors (i.e., FINRA arbitrations), or actions by the states.

In any case though, the “best interest” standard is not fundamentally different from the conduct standard imposed under ERISA for fiduciary advice to plans and participants, and it is generally at least as robust as FINRA’s suitability standard. Thus, whether the investor is a plan sponsor or other fiduciary, plan participant or IRA owner, brokers who believe that their recommendations will rise to a “fiduciary” level under the Five-Part Test can significantly reduce their risks by ensuring that (and documenting why) those recommendations satisfy the “best interest” standard, and the other impartial conduct standards.

As a final note, fiduciaries to ERISA plans (other than SEPs and SIMPLEs) are required to provide a 408(b)(2) disclosure to the responsible plan fiduciary acknowledging their status as a fiduciary (among other things). Firms are encouraged to consider whether new disclosures, or updates to existing disclosures, may be advisable. This may include situations where fiduciary advice is provided and no previous disclosure was furnished, or even cases where a previous fiduciary acknowledgment was provided in anticipation of the Fiduciary Rule, but no fiduciary status is anticipated under the Five-Part Test.

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
June 14, 2018
Written by: Brad Campbell and Joshua Waldbeser
Category: Compensation Issues, Compliance, Concurrent jurisdiction, Conflicts of Interest, DOL Fiduciary Rule, exemptions, Fees, Fiduciary, Fiduciary Duty, FINRA, FINRA Notice 13-45, Investor, IRA, Prohibited Transactions, Prudence, Recommendation, Retirement Account, SEC, Suitability

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: Bad Brokers Beware: FINRA Aims to Further Tighten the Screws on Ill-Behaved Brokers and the Firms That Employ Them
Next Next post: Make Senior Investing Safe Again? President Trump Signs Into Law the Senior Safe Act in an Attempt to Curb Financial Abuse of Seniors

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