IMHO: A Little "Free" Advice
Last Friday, the Department of Labor issued a Field
Assistance Bulletin on the "Statutory Exemption for
Investment Advice."
These FABs, which essentially are designed to give DOL
personnel in "the field" guidance on the
interpretation of the law, provide incredibly valuable
information for anyone who works with qualified retirement
programs—and this one is no exception.
This particular FAB dealt with three issues:
- Did the investment advice provisions of the Pension
Protection Act "invalidate or otherwise affect" prior DOL
guidance on the subject?
- To what extent are the standards for selecting and
monitoring a fiduciary adviser (as defined by the PPA)
different from the standards applied to those who offer
advice outside those provisions?
- For purposes of an "eligible investment advice
arrangement" under the PPA, is an affiliate of a
fiduciary adviser subject to the level-fee
requirement?
The answers to the first two were relatively
straightforward, IMHO.
The FAB plainly states that the DOL sees nothing in the
PPA's investment advice provisions that invalidates, or
in any way alters, prior guidance—including Interpretive
Bulletin 96-1 (which set out the line between investment
advice and education), Advisory Opinions 97-15A, 2001-09A
(SunAmerica Advisory Opinion that said it was OK for money
managers to offer advice on their funds, so long as the
asset allocation was determined by an independent firm),
and 2005-10A.
These "continue to represent the views of the department,
and may continue to be relied upon by the employee benefits
community," according to the DOL.
Same Duties
Similarly, the DOL stated that "the same fiduciary
duties and responsibilities apply to the selection and
monitoring of an investment adviser for participants and
beneficiaries in a participant-directed individual account
plan," irrespective of whether the advice is provided by a
fiduciary adviser under the PPA or not.
That, by the way, apparently not only means that the plan
sponsor is expected to be just as diligent in selecting and
monitoring the advice provider, but also that the plan
sponsor is not liable for the advice delivered to the
individual, either under the PPA's new provisions or
existing guidance—a point that might be a surprise to some
plan sponsors, who have worried about just that level of
liability.
The last issue—fees, and how the restrictions of the PPA
might be applied—will draw the interest of most advisers,
certainly those who are affiliated with a firm that manages
money.
Here, it seems to me, the DOL also drew what attorneys are
fond of calling a "bright line."
The FAB says that "Congress did not intend for the
requirement that fees not vary depending on the basis of
any investment options selected to extend to affiliates of
the fiduciary adviser, unless, of course, the affiliate is
also a provider of investment advice to a plan."
On the other hand, the FAB also noted that "when an
individual acts as an employee, agent, or registered
representative on behalf of an entity engaged to provide
investment advice to a plan, that individual, as well as
the entity, must be treated as the fiduciary adviser" under
the PPA's provisions.
What It Means
Ultimately, IMHO, the DOL has provided some very timely
and important information on advice.
It reinforces the reality that the PPA's advice provisions
represent an addition to current guidance, rather than a
refutation or replacement.
Significantly, it should assure plan sponsors that,
regardless of their approach on offering advice, they are
responsible for the adviser, not the advice.
It should also put them on notice that they are fully
accountable for the prudent selection and monitoring of the
adviser—and it provides a sense of the applicable
considerations for doing so.
What may remain problematic for some in the business of
providing advice is how (and more significantly, if) the
fee structures will work with their individual business
models, and those of the organizations with which they are
affiliated.
Still, it seems to me that things are clearer today than
they were a week ago—and clarity is nearly always
preferable to the alternative.
Nevin E. Adams