When FINRA raised its gift limit from $100 to $300 effective March 30, many wealth management firms would have been forgiven for seeing it as a straightforward and long-overdue policy update.
But for Steve Brown, a regulatory technology expert at StarCompliance, the threshold change is the easy part. The harder question – one that will define which firms pass regulatory scrutiny – is whether compliance teams can actually prove that what was approved on the front end matches what was spent on the back end.
"It depends on the level of workflow processes," said Brown, head of buisiness development at StarCompliance. In a recent interview with InvestmentNews, he said his firm has served over 500 financial services clients globally for 27 years, helping them manage employee conflicts of interest including gifts, entertainment, political contributions, and personal account dealings.
"Are firms using a manual workflow where they're still receiving requests for gifts or entertainment via email? If so, how are they going to meet the books and records obligations that regulators are going to expect?" Brown said.
The question is pointed at a real operational gap. Under FINRA Rule 3220 and SEC Rule 206(4)-5, firms are required not only to track gift and entertainment requests but to demonstrate that approvals were honored in practice. Brown said the biggest compliance challenge he sees across his client base is not the threshold itself, but the disconnect between approval workflows and actual expenditure monitoring.
One of the most consequential – and often misunderstood – elements of the updated rule is the distinction between gifts and entertainment. Gifts are subject to the $300 per-person annual limit. Entertainment is not, provided it remains reasonable and does not occur with a frequency or scale that raises questions of favoritism or impropriety.
The practical difference hinges on attendance. As Brown explained, if a financial services employee accompanies a client or prospect to a World Cup match, a dinner, or a baseball game, the expense is counted as entertainment. If the employee hands over tickets without attending, those tickets become a gift – and at current FIFA World Cup prices of roughly $400 to $2,500 per match, such gratuities could easily breach the $300 ceiling.
"Entertainment is not limited to $300," Brown explained, "but it shouldn't be so frequent and out of the ordinary that it raises questions of potential conflict, abuse, or favoritism."
Read more: The business of access in wealth management
Brown was clear that high-dollar entertainment events are not automatically off-limits. Depending on a firm's client base or specialization, large mixers or educational events may be reasonably justified, as long as there's a formal process and policy behind the decision to have client and advisor gatherings.
"Are they absolutely off the table? I don't think so," he said. "But I do think it needs to be reviewed. You need to have policies and procedures, you need to be able to track it, and there needs to be a decision made."
For firms that want to do the occasional giveaway of branded swag – as thoughtful gifts for the holidays, say – Brown said hats, coffee mugs, and pens count as de minimis items that generally fall outside the rule entirely.
Brown's advice to compliance teams is to stop treating gifts and entertainment as a vague gray area and start building structured, category-based policies with defined thresholds, approval levels, and frequency limits.
"I think that the firms that have sat down and put down black-and-white policies – where there are opportunities for exception – are the ones that are going to succeed," he said. "Those that don't and are just loosey-goosey about it are setting compliance teams and frankly the business up for headaches and regulatory exposure."
He offered a concrete framework: define separate buckets for de minimis items, deal-related gifts, holiday and life-event gifts, standard gifts subject to the $300 cap, and entertainment including client dinners and ticketed events. For each category, establish dollar thresholds, frequency limits, and the approval level required – including escalation to senior management for exceptions.
As an example, he described a firm that decides it is comfortable with client dinners up to four times per year at no more than $1,000 per event, with senior management sign-off required for anything beyond that. "That's a policy," he said. "Now compliance knows what to monitor."
StarCompliance addresses the back-end problem by connecting directly with expense management platforms, allowing the firm's workflow solution to cross-reference what an employee requested against what was actually charged. "We tick and tie the front-end employee request for the gift or entertainment to the actual expense, ensuring the two are in sync with what was approved," Brown said.
While pay-to-play violations are more commonly associated with public finance and municipal advisory activity – where contributions to political fundraising campaigns in exchange for business have a long regulatory history – Brown said the concept applies in wealth management too.
The clearest example is a client or prospect who conditions new business on receiving tickets to a high-profile event. "If a client is demanding tickets to a World Cup match in order to become a client, that would be problematic," he said. "That's a real example of pay-to-play."
He added that charitable contributions can also slip into this territory if they are not properly supervised and tied to a legitimate business rationale. "It's got to be supervised. It's got to be reasonable and rational."
Still, Brown was candid about problematic behavior he sees in wealth management. Far too often, he said, eager retail brokers and financial advisors skip the approval process and address the compliance question retroactively.
"People do something and ask for forgiveness later," he said. "As a compliance professional, that's the worst thing ever."
After years of mixed signals and shifting timelines from Jamie Dimon, Wall Street sources suggest the race to lead JPMorgan Chase has entered its decisive stretch.
Wealth management firm has seen an aggressive period of growth in the past year.
Survey reveals widening gap between investment ambition and workforce readiness across the sector
“It’s time for an economic reset,” wrote the California governor, in a post on X.
Masterworks was launched in 2017 but its RIA, Masterworks Advisers, is just three years old.
Dan Biagini of American Equity says the steady decline of pensions, longer lifespans and a reset in interest rates are rewriting how advisors build retirement income
Direct indexing is on pace to outgrow ETFs and mutual funds. Northern Trust's Ken Lassner explains why the advisors who get it wish they had started sooner.
