FINRA released its 2018 Annual Regulatory and Examination Priorities Letter (Priorities Letter) on January 8, 2018. While FINRA advises that it can change its priorities in response to circumstances, the purpose of the Priorities Letter is to permit broker-dealers to plan their compliance, supervisory and risk management programs and to prepare for FINRA examinations. Therefore, this Priorities Letter is significant both in what it says and in what it has chosen not to say including failing to discuss FINRA’s views regarding a “fiduciary standard.”
Continue reading “FINRA 2018 Annual Regulatory and Examination Priorities Letter Makes No Mention of a Fiduciary Duty for Brokers”
Fiduciary Rule Myths
MYTH: “Advisors must recommend the lowest cost investment.”
This post discusses what broker-dealers and their advisors need to do to manage the risks in providing investment recommendations to plans and IRAs. In order to manage those risks, though, broker-dealers and advisors need to understand what the rules require. To do that, we need to debunk some “myths” about the rules. Continue reading “Fiduciary Rule Myths”
The U.S. Supreme Court Hears Argument on Whether State Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Large Securities Class Actions in Light of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998
Generally when broker-dealers are subject to court jurisdiction, that jurisdiction, based either on diversity or subject matter, places the dispute in federal courts. However, that has not necessarily been the case in class actions. The issue of state versus federal court jurisdiction was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 28, 2017. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund regarding whether states had jurisdiction over “covered class actions” that allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “33 Act”). Specifically, the Court considered whether an amendment to the 33 Act—the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA)—precluded states from hearing the vast majority of 33 Act claims. The Court tangled with both sides over Congress’ intent in passing SLUSA and the text of SLUSA, which Justice Alito referred to as “gibberish.”
FINRA’S First Ever Public Release of Exam Findings: Top 6 Observations for Improving Compliance
As part of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) efforts to protect investors, FINRA regularly conducts examinations of its broker-dealer members. Despite requests to release the reports to assist other FINRA members in improving their compliance with securities rules and regulations, FINRA has traditionally kept the reports private. That all changed this month.
On December 6, FINRA released a Summary Report of several observations from recent examinations. FINRA selected key issues based on their “potential impact on investors and markets or the frequency with which they occur.” The Summary Report will help FINRA members address potential areas of concern and improve their compliance and supervisory programs prior to their own examinations.
The Summary Report provides observations in 11 exam areas, and the notable ones include:
The Delay of the Fiduciary Exemptions: Now Is Not the Time to Relax (Part 2 of 2)
This is Part 2 of our post on important issues for broker-dealers during the extended transition period for the fiduciary exemptions. In Part 1, we discussed the need to develop written supervisory procedures under the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE) and the importance of engaging in – and being able to demonstrate – diligent and good faith efforts to comply with the exemptions.
Two other important issues are how to demonstrate compliance with the transition exemptions and the protections that are not afforded by the non-enforcement policy.
Continue reading “The Delay of the Fiduciary Exemptions: Now Is Not the Time to Relax (Part 2 of 2)”
The Delay of the Fiduciary Exemptions: Now Is Not the Time to Relax (Part 1 of 2)
Some broker-dealers may be tempted to view the DOL’s extension of the transition period for the fiduciary exemption to July 1, 2019, and the extension of the DOL and IRS non-enforcement policies, as an opportunity to relax and take a break from compliance issues for the next 18 months. Unfortunately, that could turn out to be a risky decision.
We are concerned that firms may not be paying sufficient attention to some of the most critical transition issues, including adoption of policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the Impartial Conduct Standards and taking affirmative steps to ensure diligent, good faith compliance with the rules.
Continue reading “The Delay of the Fiduciary Exemptions: Now Is Not the Time to Relax (Part 1 of 2)”
DOL Extends Transition Period for Fiduciary Rule Exemptions: What This Means for Service Providers
The Department of Labor (DOL) has extended the current transition period for the DOL Fiduciary Rule exemptions in order to reexamine the rule and its exemptions to see if changes are warranted and to coordinate with other regulatory agencies. This pushes the end date from January 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019.
The extension does not change the requirements of the Fiduciary Rule or the transition period exemptions currently in effect. However, there are certain provisions of the Best Interest Contract Exemption, the Principal Transaction Exemption, and amendments to Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24 that are deferred.
So, does the extension mean you can relax? The simple answer is no.
We published a client alert that details what the extension means for plan service providers, and some essential steps they should take in the year ahead. Click here to read the alert.
Second Circuit Makes Class Certification in Securities Cases Easier
On November 6, 2017, the Second Circuit clarified that plaintiffs do not need to provide an “event study” to demonstrate market efficiency at the class certification stage in putative class actions. Rather, courts will certify a putative class if plaintiffs can demonstrate sufficient indirect evidence of market efficiency. Waggoner v. Barclays PLC, No. 16-1912-cv (2d. Cir. Nov 6, 2017).
Continue reading “Second Circuit Makes Class Certification in Securities Cases Easier”
Householding Accounts – Avoiding a Prohibited Transaction
Householding of brokerage accounts is a common practice. Clients like it because they can get reduced fees by aggregating all of their accounts. Broker-dealers like it because they get more assets to manage. But when retirement accounts are involved, broker-dealers need to be mindful of special rules that can adversely affect their clients…because unhappy clients don’t tend to remain clients for long.
The problem occurs under the prohibited transaction rules of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. They say that a fiduciary (i.e., the person in control of the account – the investor) can’t use retirement assets to obtain a personal benefit. With householding, the client gets a personal benefit when the combined value of both his or her retirement and personal accounts hits a breakpoint that reduces the fee on the personal accounts. In other words, the investor gets a personal benefit from the use of retirement assets.
Continue reading “Householding Accounts – Avoiding a Prohibited Transaction”
SEC Issues MiFID II No-Action Relief and Allays Various Cross-Border Concerns
The SEC recently issued three no-action letters designed to provide market participants with greater certainty regarding their U.S. regulated activities as they engage in efforts to comply with the EU’s Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II).
In a recent client alert, I provided a summary of all three no-action letters and explain that as a result of these no-action letters, existing soft-dollar and commission-sharing arrangements may continue, subject to certain new restrictions. Click here to read the client alert.
As background, MiFID II will require, for impacted EU parties, that research be priced separately from execution, starting on January 3, 2018. This represents a significant change from the current practice, whereby research is generally supplied as part of a bundle of services, with no explicit charge.
Absent new U.S. regulations or other relief, this change had the potential to cause a significant number of problems for U.S. advisers, funds and clients dealing with EU parties.