Skip to content

Broker-Dealer Regulation & Litigation Insights

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

Broker-Dealer Services to Plans and IRAs: Impact of the DOL Fiduciary Advice Exemption

The Department of Labor (DOL) confirmed on February 12 that the Trump-era Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2020-02 (PTE) would go into effect as scheduled on February 16, 2021. The PTE will likely affect the business of broker-dealers that regularly make investment recommendations to IRA owners, as well as retirement plans and their participants (including rollover recommendations). This is due in part to the requirements of the PTE itself, but also because the rulemaking includes new interpretations that will expand the circumstances under which broker-dealers and their associated persons will be deemed to be advice fiduciaries. (The exemption refers to broker-dealers as “financial institutions” and their associated persons as “investment professionals” and this article uses those terms.)

As a result of these changes, broker-dealers need to re-evaluate whether and when they (and their investment professionals) may be fiduciaries, and where they are fiduciaries, they need to develop compliant practices, policies and procedures.

Here are five key points of which brokerage firms should be aware:

1.   Though the new PTE became effective on February 16, the key compliance date is December 21, 2021.

When the Fifth Circuit struck down the Obama-era fiduciary rule in 2018, the Best Interest Contract (BIC) Exemption, which gave prohibited transaction relief for “conflicted compensation,” was vacated at the same time. With no remaining broad-based exemption permitting advice fiduciaries to receive commissions, 12b-1 fees and other “conflicted” compensation, the DOL issued Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2018-02 as a temporary stopgap. In the FAB, the DOL and IRS said it would not enforce penalties for violation of the prohibited transaction restrictions, so long as advice fiduciaries were working diligently and in good faith to comply with the “best interest” and other impartial conduct standards set forth in the vacated BIC Exemption. The DOL says it will keep this “non-enforcement policy” in place through December 20, 2021.

The additional time will provide broker-dealers that are advice fiduciaries to IRAs, plans and participants with a transition period to come into compliance with the new PTE (or a combination of other exemptions, as discussed later).

As a word of caution, the PTE only exempts prohibited conflicts resulting from nondiscretionary investment advice. If a financial institution engages in a prohibited transaction when exercising investment discretion, the exemption will not apply (although in limited circumstances, other exemptions may be available).

2.   The DOL has not changed the text of the “five-part test” that defines fiduciary investment advice, but it is interpreting the “regular basis” requirement more expansively, which will affect rollovers.

The DOL’s five-part test requires, among other things, that, to be fiduciary advice, the advice be given on a “regular basis”. The PTE’s preamble significantly expands the circumstances under which a rollover recommendation will be found to satisfy the “regular basis” requirement. The DOL states that “regular basis” may be met as part of an ongoing relationship or just an anticipated one:

“…(A)dvice to roll over plan assets can also occur as part of an ongoing relationship or an intended ongoing relationship that an individual enjoys with his or her investment advice provider…. (A)dvice to roll assets out of a Title I Plan into an IRA where the investment advice provider has not previously provided advice but will be regularly giving advice regarding the IRA in the course of a more lengthy financial relationship would be the start of an advice relationship that satisfies the regular basis prong.” [Emphasis added]

3.   The five-part test’s requirements of a “mutual agreement, arrangement or understanding” between the advisor and client that the recommendations will be a “primary basis” for investment decisions are being interpreted more expansively.

For example, the DOL explains in the PTE preamble that:

“The Department does not interpret the ‘‘primary basis’’ requirement as requiring proof that the advice was the single most important determinative factor in the Retirement Investor’s investment decision. This is consistent with the regulation’s reference to the advice as ‘‘a’’ primary basis rather than ‘‘the’’ primary basis.”

The DOL also says that disclaiming the existence of a “mutual understanding” will not preclude a broker from being deemed a fiduciary. The DOL says:

“Written statements disclaiming a mutual understanding or forbidding reliance on the advice as a primary basis for investment decisions will not be determinative, although such statements will be appropriately considered in determining whether a mutual understanding exists…

“…A financial services provider should not, for example, expect to avoid fiduciary status through a boilerplate disclaimer buried in the fine print, while in all other communications holding itself out as rendering best interest advice that can be relied upon by the customer in making investment decisions.”

Where no fiduciary relationship is intended, it is probably still advisable to make written disclaimers. But practically speaking, the written disclaimers will typically not be treated as dispositive, and a broader set of “facts and circumstances” will be considered when determining if a financial institution is a fiduciary to a particular IRA, participant or plan customer.

4.   By design, there is significant commonality between the requirements of Reg BI and those in the PTE, but there are also key differences for which firms need to prepare.

Many of the supervisory policies and procedures, client disclosures, and conflict mitigation steps broker-dealers have implemented for retail customers subject to Reg BI will be applicable for compliance with the PTE, in some cases with limited changes. However, there are a number of key differences, including the fact that the PTE applies to advice given to plan sponsors, who are not retail customers under Reg BI. Also, the disclosures provided to customers under the PTE will need to include an acknowledgement of the firm’s and the individual professional’s fiduciary status. And, the requirement in the PTE to mitigate applies to both the financial institution and the investment professional, while the Reg BI mitigation provision applies only to the investment professional.

The PTE also requires an annual review and compliance certification from a top officer of the firm, and imposes certain additional conditions and limitations (for example, on principal transactions) that Reg BI does not. (This is only a partial list of the differences.)

5.   There are a number of existing exemptions that permit fiduciary advisors to plans and IRAs to receive variable compensation, but they are not broad-based like PTE 2020-02.

Two examples: PTE 86-128 is available where a fiduciary receives brokerage commissions on the basis of its advice; and PTE 84-24 permits a fiduciary to receive commissions when recommending an annuity or insurance policy.

The requirements imposed under existing exemptions are generally less subjective, and in many respects less onerous, than those of the PTE. For example, the 86-128 requirements for IRAs are minimal (though additional disclosure and other requirements apply to ERISA plans). Plus, existing exemptions do not impose the “best interest” or other impartial conduct standards, require an acknowledgment of fiduciary status or an annual review and compliance certification. As a result, broker-dealers may wish to rely on exemptions other than the PTE where it is feasible to do so.

However, existing exemptions are generally specific to particular products and forms of compensation, whereas the PTE is more expansive. As a result, in some cases it may be necessary to rely on the new exemption instead, especially for rollover recommendations.

The new DOL guidance creates compliance challenges for broker-dealers. Firms should be able to leverage much of their Reg BI compliance work when developing policies, procedures, and disclosures under PTE 2020-02. That said, we recommend that brokers perform a “gap analysis” sooner than later, so they will have ample time to prepare before the December 21 compliance date.

We intend to address five key things that broker-dealers need to do prior to December 21 in our next article.

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
March 23, 2021
Written by: Fred Reish and Joshua Waldbeser
Category: Fiduciary, IRA, Prohibited Transactions, Retirement Account, Rollovers
Tags: Best Interest, Broker-Dealers, DOL, Impartial Conduct Standards, Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2020-02

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: SEC Exams for 2021 to Focus on Climate and ESG, Reg BI, Crypto, & More
Next Next post: Recent State Fiduciary Duty Developments: Idaho, North Dakota and Ohio

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