Fiduciary Corner

Blaine F. Aikin

Titles advisers use to play a bigger role in fiduciary regulation

Even opponents of the DOL rule appear to be zeroing in on titles that cause confusion with the investing public

Jan 6, 2017 @ 1:01 pm

By Blaine F. Aikin

Traditionally, regulation has focused on the functional definition of fiduciary. That is, fiduciary status is triggered by what you do, not what you call yourself. While that is largely true of the Department of Labor's conflict-of-interest rule as well, the rule does plow new ground by saying for the first time that holding out as a fiduciary means you are one. As simple as that may sound, it wasn't true in the past. And though uncertainty prevails around the future of the fiduciary rule under a new administration, there are clear indications that the titles financial advisers use will play a bigger role in fiduciary regulation going forward. Even opponents of the DOL rule appear to be zeroing in on titles that cause confusion with the investing public.

Last month, we had a preview of what the debate over a new fiduciary standard might look like in the form of legislation passed by the House of Representatives. House Bill 5983, the Financial Choice Act of 2016, was authored by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, as part of a larger package to repeal much of the Dodd-Frank Reform Act and the DOL fiduciary rule. While the bill was never passed by the Senate and died when the 114th Congress adjourned, interest in accomplishing the bill's objectives lives on.

The bill would have required the SEC to submit a report on a number of issues related to the impact of a fiduciary standard on consumers and the industry, including a review of alternative remedies to a fiduciary standard such as “simplifying the titles used by brokers, dealers and investment advisers and enhancing disclosure surrounding the different standards of conduct currently applicable to brokers, dealers and investment advisers.”

Future regulation modeled more along the lines of HR 5983 would shift the regulatory emphasis from broadening fiduciary coverage (as captured in Dodd-Frank) to more clearly differentiating fiduciary from non-fiduciary practitioners through clearer titles and disclosure to protect investors.

One of the many complaints lodged by some investment advisers and consumer watchdog groups against the SEC has been the leniency shown toward brokers using fiduciary-like titles such as financial adviser or wealth manager without requiring fiduciary accountability under the law. This could change at the SEC with prodding by Congress.

State regulations are similarly oriented toward functional conduct but holding-out provisions may also apply and be of growing interest. For example, in 2015, the New York City Comptroller urged the New York state assembly to pass a bill that would require financial advisers to disclose whether they are fiduciaries and if they put their clients' interests ahead of their own.

While the overall future of fiduciary regulation is fuzzy as we enter 2017, it is certainly possible that a Dodd-Frank repeal bill, something along the lines of Chairman Hensarling's 2016 proposal, will receive serious consideration in both chambers this year. We could easily see holding-out options to clarify fiduciary accountability come up in new federal and state laws, as well as in new DOL or SEC rule proposals.

From a competitive perspective, investment professionals who already serve their clients in a fiduciary capacity are likely to welcome new holding-out rules, especially if the DOL rule is scaled back. Most fiduciary advisers market their higher standard of care as a significant competitive advantage. New holding-out rules and heightened disclosure obligations about the differences in conduct standards would allow them to press their advantage.

All things considered, it would seem that advisers who have started on the path to converting from non-fiduciary to fiduciary business models due to the DOL rule should keep heading in that direction. Firms that provide advice without adhering to fiduciary practices are at greater compliance risk today due to the substantial functional conduct standards that were in place even before the DOL rule (e.g. breach of fiduciary duty is the number one complaint against brokers). New holding out rules would exacerbate compliance risks and intensify competitive pressure as well.

Regulatory speculation may influence some tactical decisions, but the firms that maintain their strategic focus upon serving their clients' best interests are likely to fair best.

Blaine F. Aikin is executive chairman of fi360 Inc.

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Upcoming Event

Jul 10

Conference

Women Adviser Summit

The InvestmentNews Women Adviser Summit, a one-day workshop now held in four cities due to popular demand, is uniquely designed for the sophisticated female adviser who wants to take her personal and professional self to the next level.... Learn more

Featured video

INTV

How did we pick this year's 40 under 40 winners?

Special projects editor Liz Skinner and editor Fred Gabriel say efforts to improve the financial advice industry and the promise of future success factored heavily in candidate selection.

Latest news & opinion

Merrill re-evaluates commission ban in retirement accounts

The wirehouse's wealth management group announces a fresh look at the ban now that the DOL rule is on the brink of death.

10 biggest retirement mistakes

Adhere to enrollment deadlines and distribution rules or pay a hefty penalty.

DOL fiduciary rule on brink of death as key deadline passes

Justice Department didn't petition the Supreme Court to rehear the case. A mandate from the 5th Circuit would finally lay the fiduciary rule to rest.

Finra to overhaul broker information system, cut compliance costs for broker-dealers

The move is intended to cut compliance costs for firms as well as make the registration and disclosure process more efficient.

SEC rule proposal doesn't include 401(k) sponsors in 'best interest' advice

Plan sponsors are left out of the equation because they don't appear to fall within the definition of "retail" investor, legal experts say.

X

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.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print