Policies and Procedures Archives - Broker-Dealer Regulation & Litigation Insights

Subject: Policies and Procedures

Hiring Social Media Influencers? How You Influence Matters

FINRA, as part of its targeted exam of member firms’ social media practices for gaining new customers, recently announced an $850,000 fine against M1 Finance LLC (“M1 Finance”) stemming from promotional social media posts made by influencers the firm hired to expand its customer base. Unfortunately for M1 Finance, FINRA determined that prior to hiring these influencers, it failed to implement effective supervisory procedures that complied with FINRA Rules and securities law to oversee the communications its influencers were posting online. Therefore, FINRA found this resulted in social media posts that violated multiple FINRA Rules for communicating fair and balanced investment information to retail customers. Firms should consider the lessons to be learned from M1 Finance’s experience.

Background

M1 Finance provides self-directed trading to retail investors through a mobile app on its website. For more than three years between January 2020 and April 2023, M1 Finance paid approximately 1,700 social media influencers more than $2.75 million to promote the firm by posting promotional information online to potential retail customers on various platforms resulting in more than 39,400 new accounts with the firm. M1 Finance paid the influencers a set fee for each new account opened with no limit on the total any influencer could earn from generating new accounts. In furtherance of this arrangement, M1 Finance directed the influencers to include in their social media posts a hyperlink to the firm’s website through which potential retail customers could open and fund a brokerage account with the firm. M1 Finance also provided graphics to include in posts and a “Welcome Guide” for influencers highlighting specific services the firm offered, like its margin lending program, and touting the lack of commissions or management fees associated with the firm’s products. The Welcome Guide even invited influencers to contact M1 Finance with their own promotional ideas.

Continue reading “Hiring Social Media Influencers? How You Influence Matters”

Investors Versus Machines: The SEC Cracks Down on AI, Robo-Advisors and Potential Conflicts of Interest

We are probably still years away from Wall Street being overrun by actual robots. Nonetheless, artificial intelligence (AI) tools are divisively integrating into all aspects of society—from the classroom to the courtroom. Many broker-dealers have also implemented AI-assisted analytics and technology. Indeed, over the last several years, many firms have made investing more easily accessible and user-friendly through “robo-advisors.” No one is questioning the “pros” of AI. But many are still concerned about the risks. The SEC is no different, nor are they any less divided. Here, the SEC has honed in on conflicts of interest that may arise through the use of AI.

On July 26, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed a regulation under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Investment Advisors Act of 1940 to combat what it sees as conflicts of interest arising from using predictive data analytics by broker-dealers and investment advisors. In strong language, the proposed rule seeks to “to eliminate, or neutralize the effect of, certain conflicts of interest associated with broker-dealers’ or investment advisers’ interactions with investors through these firms’ use of technologies that optimize for, predict, guide, forecast, or direct investment-related behaviors or outcomes.” The proposed regulation would require broker-dealers and investment advisors to take steps to address potential conflicts of interest from predictive analysis and similar technologies that interact with investors to prevent firms from placing their own interests ahead of the investors’ interests.

Continue reading “Investors Versus Machines: The SEC Cracks Down on AI, Robo-Advisors and Potential Conflicts of Interest”

You Made the List: SEC’s Spring Agenda Would Impact Broker-Dealers

The SEC’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs recently released the Spring 2023 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (the Agenda). The word salad of a title hints at the fact the SEC is considering a plethora of new rules. Indeed, many of the new rules, if finalized, would impact broker-dealers (BD) and investment advisers (IA). Below are some of the notable proposed rules of which to take stock:

Registration Requirements: The SEC is “recommending that the Commission propose amendments to the exemption for internet advisers from the prohibition against registration under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.” These are colloquially referred to as robo-advisors.

Continue reading “You Made the List: SEC’s Spring Agenda Would Impact Broker-Dealers”

You Might Want to Write Down Why You Recommended that Rollover

Since Regulation Best Interest’s (Reg BI) June 30, 2020 compliance date, the Division of Examinations of the Securities and Exchange Commissions (the Division) has been busy implementing examinations of broker-dealers to assess compliance with the regulation. The Division is planning to include Reg BI compliance into future examinations of broker-dealers. Therefore, the Division issued a Risk Alert on January 30, 2023 calling attention to deficiencies found during broker-dealer compliance examinations, as well as certain inadequate practices that might lead to deficiencies. Broker-dealers should pay attention to the issues identified by the SEC so that they do not expose themselves to regulatory trouble later down the line.

Some of the exposed weaknesses and deficiencies regarding the Reg BI Care Obligation¹ involved inadequate written policies that directed financial professionals to document the basis for their recommendations but failed to state when doing so is required or which information is needed. Under Reg BI, financial professionals are required to make account recommendations that are in the best interest of the retail investor. Doing so is especially important when a financial professional is recommending a significant financial transaction to a retail investor, like an account rollover recommendation.

Continue reading “You Might Want to Write Down Why You Recommended that Rollover”

Recent State Fiduciary and Best Interest Developments: Pennsylvania’s New Law; Nevada May be Next

Pennsylvania has adopted legislation implementing the model regulation concerning suitability in annuity transactions adopted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). This brings to 19 the total number of states adopting the NAIC suitability model. Nevada may be the next state to watch. Nevada’s Securities Administrator has indicated that she is resuming work on the state’s fiduciary rule for investment advisers and broker-dealers and expects to release the rule by November. Stay tuned.

Continue reading “Recent State Fiduciary and Best Interest Developments: Pennsylvania’s New Law; Nevada May be Next”

Reg BI: What’s Going On and What May Happen Next?

SEC Chair Gary Gensler has not publicly stated much regarding Reg BI since Spring of this year. Generally, though, the messaging from SEC leadership regarding the Division of Examinations and the Division of Enforcement continues to be aggressive. In the retail investor area, for example, in late August Chair Gensler appointed Barbara Roper, the Director of Investor Protection for the Consumer Federation of America, as a Senior Advisor to the Chair. Turning back to Reg BI specifically, what we continue to hear out of the SEC is that Chair Gensler’s regime is going to play the Reg BI “hand that it has been dealt” aggressively.

On November 4, 2021, SEC Commissioner and former Acting Chair Allison Herren Lee gave a speech at ACLI’s CLE 2021 Conference on Life Insurance Products entitled “A Call to Action: Recommendations for Complying with Reg BI.” Commissioner Herren Lee covered several Reg BI topics, including what constitutes a recommendation and mitigation. Regarding recommendations, she noted that the Commission’s supplemental materials accompanying Reg BI speak of a “call to action” that may be viewed as influencing an investor to invest in or trade a particular security being enough to constitute a recommendation. On this topic, she emphasized the importance of the account opening process. Commissioner Herren Lee also addressed mitigation, in particular to manage the risk of an associated person putting their interests ahead of their customers, perhaps due to limitations in the firm’s products menu.

Continue reading “Reg BI: What’s Going On and What May Happen Next?”

Risky Business: SEC Risk Alert Highlights Broker-Dealers’ Anti-Money Laundering Miscues and Encourages Firms to Beef Up Protection

Ben Franklin once said “by failing to prepare, you prepare to fail.” Based on the SEC’s latest risk alert concerning broker-dealers’ anti-money laundering (AML) compliance (or lack thereof), some firms would be well served to heed Mr. Franklin’s advice.

The SEC specifically seeks to examine broker-dealers’ compliance with the various regulations and laws governing firms’ AML obligations. The risk alert highlights the SEC’s observations relating to firms’ deficiencies concerning (a) AML policies and procedures and internal controls; and (b) suspicious activity reporting (SAR). The SEC’s emphasis on AML should come as no surprise, as the SEC has previously included it as an exam priority. FINRA has additionally provided broker dealers with extensive AML guidance.

Continue reading “Risky Business: SEC Risk Alert Highlights Broker-Dealers’ Anti-Money Laundering Miscues and Encourages Firms to Beef Up Protection”

The Fate of the Fiduciary Rule: What is Not Affected

While we won’t know until the end of the month whether the DOL fiduciary rule will survive beyond May 7, there are some activities that won’t be affected, regardless of what happens.

Let’s start by reviewing basics. A fiduciary under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) includes one who provides investment advice to an ERISA plan and/or IRA for a fee –an “advice fiduciary.” Before the new DOL fiduciary rule, a broker-dealer or RIA (referred to here as a “firm”) would be considered an advice fiduciary if a five-part test was satisfied: (1) its advisor provided advice for compensation about a security or other property, (2) on a regular basis, (3) pursuant to a mutual understanding, (4) that the advice would form a primary basis for the investor’s decision and (5) it was individualized based upon the investor’s particular needs. If the DOL’s new fiduciary rule does not survive, the five-part test will come back into effect.

Regardless of whether the DOL fiduciary rule or the five-part test applies, there are some things that will remain unchanged:

• Investment Management Services: Discretionary investment management for ERISA plans or IRAs is and will continue to be a fiduciary service. This is because under both ERISA and the Code, there is a definition of “fiduciary” separate and apart from an “advice fiduciary.” That definition says that a broker-dealer or RIA, or its representative, is a fiduciary when it has discretion over ERISA or IRA assets. This means that investment management services for ERISA plans are, and continue to be, subject to ERISA’s prudent man standard of care and duty of loyalty. Also, managing ERISA and/or IRA plan assets is, and will continue to be, subject to the fiduciary prohibited transaction rules in ERISA and the Code. Firms need to have policies, training and supervisory processes in place to ensure that advisors providing investment management services to ERISA plans and/or IRAs comply with these rules, even if the DOL fiduciary rule does not survive.

• Reasonable Compensation: Firms also need to make sure that compensation for services to ERISA plans or IRAs is reasonable, because unreasonable compensation is a prohibited transaction under both the Code and ERISA. This requirement applies to all service providers to plans, participants and IRAs, and to service providers who are not fiduciaries. Firms need to develop systems and data to determine reasonable compensation for different products and services and to manage advisor compensation practices.

• Rollover Recommendations by Fiduciary Advisors: Even if the DOL fiduciary rule does not survive, some rollover recommendations may still be fiduciary acts. Specifically, under a DOL advisory opinion, if an advisor (and the firm) is a plan fiduciary and its advisor recommends that a plan participant take a distribution and roll over to an IRA, the advisor will be a fiduciary for that purpose. As such, the advisor’s recommendation needs to satisfy the ERISA prudent man standard. Additionally, if the DOL fiduciary rule does not survive, there will not be a Best Interest Contract Exemption to “cure” the resulting prohibited transaction. If, on the other hand, the firm is not a fiduciary to the plan and the advisor recommends a rollover, it will not be a fiduciary act if the DOL fiduciary rule does not survive. Firms should examine their current rollover practices and determine what processes will need to be retained to address these issues.

• Ongoing Advisory Services: Providing ongoing investment advisory services to ERISA plans or IRAs based upon the particular needs of the retirement investor will continue to be a fiduciary act even if the DOL fiduciary rule is vacated. The reason is that under most advisory arrangements, the advisor is providing the advice on a regular basis and meeting the other elements of the five-part test. The firm should identify current arrangements that satisfy the five-part test and make sure there are policies and procedures in place to ensure compliance with the prohibited transaction rules and exemptions and, in the case of ERISA plan services, compliance with the prudent man rule and duty of loyalty.

While the possible demise of the DOL fiduciary rule will limit the scope of investment activities that are fiduciary in nature, there are still investment services that will be fiduciary and thus subject to the prohibited transaction requirements. As a result, firms should take steps now to identify those activities and take appropriate steps for compliance.

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)”