A Little 'Free' Advice


On 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.

Three Issues

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. 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.

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 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

Field Assistance Bulletin 2007-1 is online HERE

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Do Roth and 401(k) Pre-Tax Holders Really Spend Differently?

Image
An interesting—and somewhat counterintuitive—report came out last week, one that cast doubt on the “common wisdom” regarding Roth versus traditional pre-tax savings. The assumption underlying the research [i] was that those who had not yet paid taxes on their savings (the traditional pre-tax savings) would be hesitant to tap into those savings and trigger taxes, certainly more so that individuals that had already paid those taxes. Instead, the research suggested that the opposite occurred; that individuals who had saved on a pre-tax basis actually withdrew more/sooner—but with a twist.  This they hailed as good news. They noted that the research suggests investing in a CT (current-taxed, or Roth) plan could help ease concerns about outliving funds—because they spend at a lower rate (though they saw this as a negative for those who saved on a deferred tax (DT) basis).  They even managed to find a silver lining in the “cloud” of faster spending by the pre-tax crowd beca
Read more

Is the 401(k) Really a ‘Horrible’ Retirement Plan?

Image
  A recent “news” post about a blog post finds some curious “faults” with the 401(k). The news item carried the provocative title “ ‘Rich Dad’ Robert Kiyosaki Reveals Why the 401(k) Is a ‘Horrible’ Retirement Plan .” It originally ran on GoBankingRates.com, but was subsequently picked up in syndication on Yahoo Finance (at least). For the uninitiated, Robert Kiyosaki is one of those “I’ll help you get rich the way I did” types, providing that road map via books (notably “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”) and seminars. He offers comparisons to decisions made by his dad (poor dad) in contrast to those of the father of his best friend (rich dad).  Suffice it to say that his dad worked hard and saved the old-fashioned way—which is NOT his advice to you. That’s included previous pearls of wisdom like “ Why Saving Money is the Wrong Way to Prepare for Retirement .” Apparently rather than saving for retirement, we’re supposed to “look for an investment that will pay for your desired standard of living. Ma
Read more

Shifting the 401(k) ‘Balance’?

Image
A week or so ago, I came across an announcement that IBM was making changes to its 401(k). More specifically that, effective next year they were going to replace their matching contribution in their 401(k) with an employer contribution to a cash balance plan. [i] In the days that followed, the news was picked up in a couple of different trade publications—the implication being that this might be signs of a new shift in plan design. Heck, even Teresa Ghilarducci weighed in , championing the “evolution” to a defined benefit structure from the “flawed” 401(k). She never misses an “opportunity.” Readers here are likely familiar with the basic concepts of a cash balance design. Technically a defined benefit plan, it’s generally referred to as a “hybrid” because it also has a number of participant-friendly aspects that it shares with a defined contribution plan, notably an account balance (though it’s a “notional” one) that is shared with participants. The benefits accumulate
Read more