Is the New Fiduciary Rule Enforceable During the Transition Period? (Myth #5)
This is my 80th article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s (DOL) fiduciary rule and exemptions. These articles also cover the DOL’s FAQs interpreting the regulation and exemptions and related developments in the securities laws.
This is another in my series of articles about myths concerning the Fiduciary Rule. This article deals with the “myth” that the fiduciary rule will not be enforced during the transition period. As the word “myth” suggests, that’s not correct.
As background, the Department of Labor said that it will not, under appropriate circumstances, enforce the requirements of the fiduciary regulation and prohibited transaction exemptions (and, particularly, the Best Interest Contract Exemption [BICE]):
Accordingly, during the phased implementation period from June 9, 2017 to July 1, 2019, the Department will not pursue claims against fiduciaries who are working diligently and in good faith to comply with the Fiduciary Rule and applicable provisions of the PTEs [Prohibited Transaction Exemptions] or treat those fiduciaries as being in violation of the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs.”
The IRS has agreed to abide by that non-enforcement policy.
At first blush, that could be interpreted to be a free pass for compliance until the transition period ends on July 1, 2019. However, it would be a mistake to read it that way. The DOL went on to say:
At the same time, however, the Department emphasizes, as it has in the past, that firms and advisers should work “diligently and good faith to comply” with their fiduciary obligation during the Transition Period. The “basic fiduciary norms and standards of fair dealings” are still required of fiduciaries during the Transition Period (citations omitted).
As a result, we know that there is a “line in the sand” and crossing that line could result in DOL enforcement. However, we don’t know quite where the line is. Elsewhere, though, the DOL has said that it expects financial institutions (for example, broker-dealers and RIA firms) to develop policies, procedures and practices which are designed to ensure that advisors do not succumb to conflicts of interest and do not make recommendations that are not in the best interest of retirement investors. As a result, it would be poor risk management for broker-dealers and RIAs to provide investment advice to plans, participants and IRAs (“retirement investors”) without having adopted appropriate policies, procedures and practices . . . and then supervising compliance with those policies, procedures and practices. Stated slightly differently, there is a risk that the failure to take those steps could result in the DOL finding that a broker-dealer or RIA had not worked “diligently and in good faith” to comply with the fiduciary rule and the PTEs.
So, the first lesson is that the non-enforcement policy does not give a free pass during the transition period. Instead, there are expectations about good faith efforts to comply with the Impartial Conduct Standards and about the adoption and application of policies, procedures and practices to mitigate the effects of conflicts of interest and incentive compensation.
A second enforcement risk is that private claims by investors can be made under the fiduciary rule and the prohibited transaction exemptions. It is clear that, for advice to plans and participants (which would include, for example, recommendations of rollovers), there is a private right of action under ERISA. In other words, for advice to plans and participants, ERISA’s remedial provisions apply even during the transition period. As a result, while DOL and IRS enforcement may be limited, private claims can be filed on behalf of fiduciaries and participants.
The issue is somewhat more complex for claims of fiduciary breaches and failures to satisfy the PT exemptions for IRAs. However, it is likely that claimant’s attorneys will be asserting fiduciary claims with creative theories. For example, if an advisor with a broker-dealer engages in a prohibited transaction (that is, receives compensation from a third party, such as a mutual fund, or otherwise makes recommendations that affect the level of his or her compensation), the broker-dealer and advisor would need the benefit of a prohibited transaction exemption—probably BICE. That creates a Hobson’s choice. If the broker-dealer defends itself by saying that it was not claiming the benefit of the BIC exemption (and, therefore, was not bound by the Impartial Conduct Standards, including the best interest standard of care), that defense is effectively an admission of the commission of a prohibited transaction. On the other hand, if the broker-dealer responds by claiming the benefit of the exemption, the broker-dealer is agreeing that it is bound by the Impartial Conduct Standards. While neither of those may be explicit claims available to claimants, those choices can put financial institutions and their advisors in difficult positions.
Finally, there may be claims by state regulators. For example, the State of Massachusetts recently filed a claim against a broker-dealer on the basis that it violated its policies and procedures concerning sales contests. Those policies and procedures were developed as a result of the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule and prohibited transaction exemptions. In other words, the claim was not that the broker-dealer violated the Impartial Conduct Standards, but instead it violated its own policies and procedures, which were developed in order to comply with the those Standards. (By the way, individual investors and their attorneys could also assert claims on that basis.)
What does this mean? It means that the fiduciary “waters” are treacherous. It means that advisors and their financial institutions should re-double their efforts to provide documented advice that is in the best interest of retirement investors. The easiest way to avoid difficulties is to comply with the new rules.
The views expressed in this article are the views of Fred Reish, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Drinker Biddle & Reath.
Part 1- Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #1
Part 2 - Best Interest Standard of Care: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #2
Part 3 - Hidden Preamble Observations: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #3
Part 4 - TV Stock Tips and Fiduciary Advice: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary #4
Part 5 - Level Fee Fiduciary Exemption: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #5
Part 6 - Fiduciary Regulation And The Exemptions: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #6
Part 7 - Fiduciary Regulations And The Exemptions : Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #7
Part 8 - Designated Investment Alternatives: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #8
Part 9 - Best Interest Standard and the Prudent Man Rule: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #9
Part 10 - FINRA Regulatory Notice: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #10
Part 11-ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #11
Part 12- Potential Prohibited Transactions: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #12
Part 13-Investment Policies: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #13
Part 14- Investment Suggestions: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #14
Part 15- Best Interest Contract Exemption: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #15
Part 16 - Adviser Recommendations: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #16
Part 17 - Level Fee Fiduciary: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #17
Part 19- Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #19: Advisors' Use of "Hire Me" Practices.
Part 20- Three Parts of "Best Interest Standard of Care": Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #20
Part 22-Banks and Prohibited Transactions: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #22
Part 24 - Differential Compensation Based on Neutral Factors: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #24
Part 25-Reasonable Compensation Versus Neutral Factors: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #25
Part 27 - Definition of Compensation: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #27
Part 28 - What About Rollovers that Aren’t Recommended?: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #28
Part 29- Capturing Rollovers: What Information is Needed?: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #29
Part 31 - “Un-levelizing” Level Fee Fiduciaries: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #31
Part 33- Discretionary Management, Rollovers and BICE: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #33
Part 34- Seminar Can Be Fiduciary Act: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #34
Part 35- Presidential Memorandum on Fiduciary Rule: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #35
Part 36 -Retirement Advice and the SEC: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #36
Part 37 - SEC Retirement-Targeted Examinations: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #37
Part 42 - Rollovers under DOL’s Final Rule: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #42
Part 43 - BICE Transition: More Than the Eye Can See - Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #43
Part 44 - Basic Structure of Fiduciary Package (June 9): Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #44
Part 47- “Real” Requirements of Fiduciary Rule: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #47
Part 49- The Requirement to Disclose Fiduciary Status: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #49
Part 50- Fourth Impartial Conduct Standard: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #50
Part 51- Recommendations to Transfer IRAs: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #51
Part 54 - The DOL’s RFI and Possible changes to BICE: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #54
Part 55- DOL’s RFI and Recommendation of Annuities- Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #55
Part 58- Recommendations to Contribute to a Plan or IRA- Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #58
Part 60- What the Tibble Decision Means to Advisers: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #60
Part 61- The Fiduciary Rule, Distributions and Rollovers: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #61
Part 65- Unexpected Consequences of Fiduciary Rule - Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #65
Part 66- Concerns About 408(b)(2) Disclosures: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #66
Part 67- From the DOL to the SEC - Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #67
Part 68-Recommendations of Distributions - Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #68
Part 69- Compensation Risks for Broker-Dealers and RIAs: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #69
Part 70-The Fiduciary Rule and Recordkeeper Services: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #70
Part 71- Recordkeepers and Financial Wellness Programs: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #71
Part 72-The "Wholesaler" Exception: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #72
Part 74 -One More Fiduciary Issue for Recordkeepers: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #74
Part 75 - The Fiduciary Rule: Mistaken Beliefs-Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #75
Part 77 - The Fiduciary Rule: Mistaken Beliefs (#2): Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #77
Part 78 - The Fiduciary Rule: Mistaken Beliefs (#3): Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #78
Part 79 - The Fiduciary Rule: Mistaken Beliefs (#4)- Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #79
Part 83 - Part 2 of Undisclosed (and Disclosed) 12b-1 Fees: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #83
Part 85 -The Fiduciary Rule: What’s Next (Part 1)? : Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #85
Part 86- The Fiduciary Rule: What’s Next (Part 2)?: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #86
Part 87 - The Fiduciary Rule: What’s Next (Part 3)?: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #87
Part 88 -The Fiduciary Rule: What’s Next (Part 4)? : Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #88