Skip to content

Broker-Dealer Regulation & Litigation Insights

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

The DOL’s Fiduciary Interpretation and Exemption: Impact on Rollover Recommendations

On December 18, 2020, the Department of Labor published its expansion of the fiduciary interpretation and exemption for conflicted advice in the Federal Register. (Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2020-02, Improving Investment Advice for Workers and Retirees.) The exemption will be effective on February 16, 2021. The interpretation is effective immediately.

Since the effective date for the exemption is after the inauguration of the Biden administration, it is almost certain that the effective date will be further delayed. During that delay, we think it is likely the exemption will be revised or possibly withdrawn. But, it is just as likely that the expanded definition of fiduciary advice for rollover recommendations will be retained and possibly expanded. That could make life more difficult for broker-dealers, investment advisers and insurance companies. While these rules will affect all of those industries, this article focuses on the impact of the likely outcomes on broker-dealers.

To understand the impact of these changes, the starting point is in the prohibited transaction restrictions in ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Without getting into the weeds, those rules prohibit fiduciary recommendations to plans, participants or IRA owners that result in increased compensation for the “fiduciary advisor.” That raises two issues. The first is the meaning of increased compensation and the second is what constitutes a fiduciary recommendation? We discuss both questions, and the answers, in the context of rollover recommendations.

In the preamble to the exemption, the DOL explains the conflict of interest (that is, the prohibited transaction):

A firm that recommends a rollover to a Retirement Investor can generally expect to earn transaction-based compensation such as commissions, or an ongoing advisory fee, from the IRA, but may or may not earn compensation if the assets remain in the Title I Plan. In light of potential conflicts of interest related to rollovers from Title I Plans to IRAs, Title I and the Code prohibit an investment advice fiduciary from receiving fees resulting from investment advice to Title I Plan participants to roll over assets from the plan to an IRA, unless an exemption applies.

In other words, the compensation that would be earned for investment services to the rollover IRA would be prohibited, absent an exemption, or exception, to the prohibited transaction restriction. Thus, the purpose of this exemption is to provide that exception, but only if the conditions in the exemption are satisfied. (While the conditions are beyond the scope of this article, one example is that the specific reasons why the rollover recommendation is in the best interest of the participant must be put in writing, and that writing must be given to the participant.) A point to remember, though, is that if there isn’t an exemption, the compensation resulting from a fiduciary rollover recommendation would be prohibited.

In response to the second question…when is a rollover recommendation fiduciary advice…the DOL dramatically changed its interpretation of the 5-part fiduciary test. That test includes as one prong a requirement that advice be rendered “on a regular basis.” In the past, most broker-dealers had relied on the “regular basis” part to say that a rollover recommendation was not fiduciary advice. That is, since rollover recommendations are usually made only once, a broker-dealer (or its representative) would not become a fiduciary because of the rollover recommendation. However, in its new interpretation the DOL appears to have found a way around that limitation. Here’s what they said:

However, advice 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. In circumstances in which the investment advice provider has been giving advice to the individual about investing in, purchasing, or selling securities or other financial instruments through tax-advantaged retirement vehicles subject to Title I or the Code, the advice to roll assets out of a Title I Plan is part of an ongoing advice relationship that satisfies the regular basis prong.

The DOL is, in effect, tacking the previous advice about how to invest, e.g., in an IRA, onto the recommendation to rollover, and saying that the two combined satisfy the regular basis test for fiduciary status. Certainly innovative, but not everyone is convinced that advice to an individual about investing in an IRA can be attached to a rollover recommendation to that same investor in his or her capacity as a participant. But the DOL has the upper hand here in the sense that it can seek to enforce the rules this way, and the broker-dealer will be arguing in court that the interpretation is incorrect.

In the preamble to the exemption, the DOL also said:

Similarly, advice 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. It is clear under Title I and the Code that advice to a Title I Plan includes advice to participants and beneficiaries in participant-directed individual account pension plans, so in these scenarios, there is advice to the Title I Plan— meaning the Plan participant or beneficiary—on a regular basis.

This is a continuation of the same reasoning as the first example, but in this case there is a connection in the sense that the money in the rollover IRA came from advice about the participant’s account in the plan.

Accepting, for the purposes of this article, that the DOL position will hold up, and acknowledging that it is an enforcement interpretation, it is already in effect. Since we suspect that most rollover recommendations will fall under the new fiduciary interpretation, that means that broker-dealers need the exemption in order to avoid prohibited transactions for compensation earned from the investments in the rollover IRAs. But, what if the Biden administration delays the effective date of the exemption or, for that matter, withdraws the exemption? That would mean that rollover recommendations would be stymied…because of the prohibited transaction rules and the lack of an exemption.

Fortunately, though, the DOL and IRS have agreed to extend a non-enforcement policy (FAB 2018-02) for one year…until December 20, 2021. That means that neither the DOL nor the IRS will enforce the prohibited transaction rules for fiduciary rollover recommendations until that date, so long as the Impartial Conduct Standards (ICS) are satisfied. The ICS are, in essence, the best interest standard of care, a limitation to reasonable compensation, and a prohibition on materially misleading statements.

However, that’s not the end of the story. While the DOL and IRS will not enforce those rules during 2021, ERISA can also be enforced by private rights of action. For example, a participant who received “bad” rollover advice could seek damages for breach of fiduciary duty by the broker-dealer or its representative. And, of course, the SEC and FINRA could enforce the best interest standard for rollover recommendations in Reg BI.

This article is a straightforward presentation of the rules and issues. There is more complexity than could be discussed here. This is an area where broker-dealers should obtain expert advice from experienced professionals.

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
January 12, 2021
Written by: Fred Reish
Category: DOL Fiduciary Rule, IRA, Rollovers

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: The SEC’s CCO Guidance Month
Next Next post: The Second Phase of the SEC’s Reg BI Exams

Subscribe to Alerts

Recent Posts

  • 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?
  • Broker-Dealer Regulation & Litigation Digest – Summer 2022

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
    • 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