'Merrill Lynch rule' struck down

Mar 30, 2007 @ 11:23 am

By Sara Hansard

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s so-called “Merrill Lynch rule” was overturned in a 2-1 decision released Friday morning by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington.

The decision is a big win for the Financial Planning Association of Denver, which challenged the SEC when it issued its rule in 2005 exempting brokerage firms that charge asset-based fees from investment advisory regulations under specified conditions.

The ruling, written by Judge Judith Rogers for herself and Judge Brett Kavanaugh, said the SEC exceeded its authority by exempting brokerage firms that charge asset-based fees from regulation under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

“The rule is inconsistent with the IAA,” Judge Rogers wrote, because it fails to meet the law’s requirements for exemptions.

Under that law, she wrote, brokers can only be exempt from advisory regulation if they do not receive “special compensation” for giving advice.

Charging asset-based fees means they must register as advisers.

“No… indicators of congressional intent support the SEC’s interpretation of its authority,” Judge Rogers wrote.

Judge Merrick Garland, who dissented, said that the SEC’s interpretation of the IAA was reasonable, and courts are bound by legal precedent to give government regulators the benefit of the doubt in interpreting the law.

The ruling is “very straightforward,” and a “clean decision,” commented David Tittsworth, executive director of the Investment Advisers Association in Washington.

“This is throwing the rule out.”

The decision opens the door for Congress to re-examine the securities laws in light of changes that have taken place in the industry since those laws were enacted in the Depression era.

“It looks to me like Congress probably will need to get into this fray to sort it out,” Mr. Tittsworth said.

“This rule should have died a quick and merciful death six years ago,” said FPA President Nicholas A. Nicolette.

“It would not be the best use of taxpayer dollars to prolong a policy that is contrary to the public interest.”


What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Sponsored financial news

Featured video


Advisers beware: tax law has unintended consequences

Commission accounts could be preferable for some clients, and advisers could be incentivized to move from employee broker-dealers to independent channels.

Recommended Video

Path to growth

Latest news & opinion

Bond investors have more to worry about than a government shutdown

Inflation worries, international rates pushing Treasuries yields higher.

State measures to prevent elder financial abuse gaining steam

A growing number of states are looking to pass rules preventing exploitation of seniors.

Morgan Stanley reports a loss of advisers after exiting the protocol for broker recruiting

The firm said it lost 47 brokers in the fourth quarter, the most in any quarter of 2017.

Morgan Stanley's wealth management fees climb to all-time high

Improvement reflect firm's shift of more clients into fee-based accounts priced on asset levels, which boosts results as markets rise.

Legislation would make it harder for investors to sue mutual funds over high fees

A plaintiff would have to state in their initial complaint why fiduciary duty was breached, and then prove the violation with 'clear and convincing evidence.'


Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting investmentnews.com? It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist investmentnews.com

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.


Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print