We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,343)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (427)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (809)
  • Wink's Articles (354)
  • Wink's Inside Story (276)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • DOL’s best interest standard may be tougher than it looks: BLOG

    June 9, 2016 by Bob Clark

    There were a number of excellent comments to my last blog, “For IRA Investors, a Warning on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule,” including a tome-like tutorial by Ron Rhoades on “best interest” and “sole interest” standards as they apply to the new DOL rules, which I highly recommend that you read in its entirety if you haven’t already done so. Some of these comments warrant comment or clarification — or simply deserve to be highlighted.

    [Editor’s note: Some of these quotes have been lightly edited for typos and clarity.]

    First, let’s clear up a misconception of my own making. Frank Prazma commented in part: “Sole interest means no compensation and no advice. What kind of strong fiduciary advocacy would that be?” And “AdvisorGuy” chimed in: “Mr. Aikin’s writing clearly states that a sole interest standard basically eliminates compensation to advisors, and would make even disinterested expert advice hard to come by.”

    Both Prazma and AdvisorGuy are referring to a quote from fi360 CEO Blaine Aikin’s May 13 blog: “What’s the Difference Between ‘Sole Interests’ and ‘Best Interests?’” which read: “The sole interest standard [in ERISA] is the more rigid standard, requiring that conflicts of interest in a fiduciary relationship be avoided entirely. Strictly speaking, a sole interest standard forbids even mutually beneficial transactions or compensation for the advisor.”

    While this makes it sound as if pension advisors can’t be compensated under ERISA, obviously this isn’t the case. I had omitted Aikin’s follow-up comment: “Because of the strict interpretation of a sole interest standard, prohibited transaction exemptions are put into effect to allow for even a minimum of commerce to occur within the confines of the client-advisor relationship.”

    In other words, the authors of ERISA felt so strongly about the harmful effects of conflicted advice that they first ruled them out entirely — and then created specific exemptions that detail how each “acceptable” conflict must be handled to mitigate its effect on advice to investors. (A similar format was used by the DOL in its BICE rules for charging sales commissions.)

    As Rhoades pointed out, in ERISA “there are 20 statutory exemptions from the prohibited transaction rule, including the main exemption used by fee-only financial advisors, wherein the provision of services necessary for the operation of a plan is permitted for no more than reasonable compensation.” The takeaway here is that pension advisers do get paid, but their compensation must meet reasonable industry standards.

    Prazma also reiterated the securities industry’s current mantra that the DOL’s “biased” rules are also “harmful to all retirement savers, as they will be left with fewer advisors and diminished investment choices.” Forgive me for beating this limping horse once again, but I can’t resist: Isn’t this just another way of saying that if we have to act in our investors’best interests, many of our current investment recommendations won’t qualify, and consequently, many brokers won’t be able to make a living?

    The fact of the matter is that many of the transactions that Prazma and others in the securities industry fear won’t be allowed under the new DOL rules probably aren’t permissible today under common law fiduciary standards, either. According to Rhoades, “There are some who believe that acting in the ‘best interests’ of a client only requires disclosure of a conflict of interest, followed by mere consent of the client. Yet under the common law applicable to fiduciary relationships […], the best interests test is fairly strict. It requires, when a conflict of interest is present: (1) affirmative disclosure to the client of all material facts; (2) understanding by the client of the material facts, including their ramifications […]; (3) the informed consent of the client; and (4) even then, that the transaction be fundamentally fair to the client. The courts […] do not believe that clients will provide informed consent to be harmed.”

    Rhoades’ point here is that “while the body of law around the ‘best interests’ standard is robust in similar relationships (such as attorney-client), it needs to be further developed with respect to financial advisors and clients.” He also noted that “the existence of mandatory arbitration has hindered the development of the law in this area, over the past several decades.”

    That means the only reason brokers today can get away with the type of behavior that Prazma fears will be eliminated by the DOL rules is because FINRA controls the vast majority of broker oversight (under its mandatory arbitration requirement) and has redefined “best interests” to mean “suitability” and “disclosure.”

    According to Rhoades: “FINRA already (incorrectly) has used this term [‘best interests’] in describing aspects of the suitability standard. SIFMA and FINRA last summer touted a disclosure-based suitability standard to the DOL in their comment letters when promoting a ‘new federal best interests’ standard. […] Rightfully, the DOL rejected the SIFMA/FINRA proposal.”

    As Rhoades pointed out, the securities industry (including FINRA) likely will continue trying to erode even the best interest standard as opposed to the stronger ERISA “sole interest” standard that’s not used in the new DOL rules, in much the same way that the SEC has, in the wake of many brokers becoming RIAs over the past two decades, watered down thefiduciary standard for investment advisers to mean “disclosure.” But Rhoades is more optimistic than I (and far more knowledgeable on the subject) that the new DOL “best interests” standard will be a major advance in retirement investor protection.

    “I submit,” he wrote, “that the ‘best interests fiduciary standard,’ as set forth by the DOL, is a very tough standard. Moreover, as a principles-based standard, its requirements have been imposed in similar situations for centuries. […] Properly applied, the ‘best interests’ standard is not all that different from the ‘sole interests’ standard in terms of its effectiveness to safeguard the client […], and the DOL’s language in its issuing releases bolsters its strict application.”

    Originally posted on ThinkAdvisor.com

    Originally Posted at ProducersWeb on June 9, 2016 by Bob Clark.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency