SEC tells advisors to rein in conflicts of interest under Reg BI

The Securities and Exchange Commission flag flies in front of a building.
Bloomberg News

For two years, wealth advisors have demanded answers from the SEC about how it intends to enforce Regulation Best Interest, the 2020 rule that sets a minimum standard of retail client care in financial advice. They are unlikely to be cheered by the Wall Street's regulator's latest guidance. 

The SEC issued a red alert on Aug. 3 to brokerages and registered investment advisors indicating that it intends to take a tougher stance on the conflicts of interest that plague the retail investing industry. The guidance, part of the SEC's campaign to enforce Reg BI, offers the most specific clues yet to where the regulator will aim its audits and enforcement actions against misbehaving brokers and advisors. Those targets include aspects of financial advisor compensation, payment agreements and certain longtime industry practices it says aren't in a client's best interest. The guidance also signals a more active approach by the SEC after a 2018 court decision struck down a previous regulation with stronger client protections. 

Reg BI requires brokerages to recommend investments and transactions that are in a client's best interest. The previous, lower standard required investments that were merely "suitable." But Reg BI still has weaknesses: While brokers have to disclose and mitigate conflicts of interest, they don't have to avoid all of them. By contrast, the fiduciary standard governing RIAs requires them to place a client's interest above their own at all times and to eliminate many more of those conflicts. The SEC brought its first enforcement case under Reg BI in June and hinted last month that more are on the way.

Under Reg BI and the fiduciary standard for RIAs, a conflict is anything "that might incline a broker-dealer or investment adviser — consciously or unconsciously — to make a recommendation or render advice that is not disinterested," according to the bulletin. "The staff believes that identifying and addressing conflicts should not be merely a 'check-the-box' exercise, but a robust, ongoing process that is tailored to each conflict."

Representatives for the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, which represents the largest brokerages, banks and asset managers, didn't respond to a request for comment on the bulletin. Representatives for the Financial Services Institute, which advocates for independent wealth managers, declined to discuss the bulletin.

"We would need time to thoroughly review this bulletin before providing comment, but, overall, we believe that the successful implementation of Regulation Best Interest is the best way to protect investors, including from conflicts of interests, and current enforcement efforts demonstrate that Regulation Best Interest is working," General Counsel David Bellaire said in a statement.

Christine Lazaro, Director of the Securities Arbitration Clinic at the St. John's University School of Law, said that the new bulletin shows that the SEC has seen research from its state-level counterparts suggesting that wealth managers are violating Reg BI by placing their own profits above their clients' interests.

The guidance should come as no surprise to any large wealth managers seeking to comply with Reg BI and its predecessor, Lazaro said. The Department of Labor's 2016 Fiduciary Rule sought to bring nearly all of the industry in line with the standards of RIAs, but an appeals court vacated that regulation two years later. Lazaro said that the bulletin uses much of the same language as the preamble to Reg BI about conflicts of interest.

The bulletin "reinforced that disclosure is absolutely not going to be sufficient mitigation," Lazaro said, noting that it makes clear that comparisons to industry norms won't meet the bar, either. "That I think is incredibly significant, in terms of making clear that the expectations are to actually mitigate conflicts," she added.

For a summary of the key takeaways from the lengthy SEC "staff bulletin" about conflicts of interest, scroll down the slideshow. To see a list of the SEC's examination priorities this year, click here. And, for a list of nine ways to evaluate client risk, follow this link.   

Do all brokerages and RIAs have conflicts of interest?

The SEC answered with a definitive "yes." With the caveat that the nature of the conflict varies by factors like a firm's business model, the regulator says that firms must prevent themselves or their financial advisors from placing their interests ahead of their clients.

Wealth managers "have an economic incentive to recommend products, services, or account types that provide more revenue or other benefits for the firm or its financial professionals, even if such recommendations or advice are not in the best interest of the retail investor," according to the bulletin. "This can create substantial conflicts of interest for both firms and financial professionals."

What are the main examples of conflicts of interest?

For any wealth managers wondering exactly which industry practices are coming under scrutiny in the Reg BI era, the SEC offered four types:
  • Payments and other benefits flowing among wealth and asset managers and their custodians based on a level of assets or business
  • Compensation for advisors tied to "quotas, bonuses, sales contests, special awards" or other types of incentives
  • Gifts, meals, travel and "related benefits, including in connection with the financial professional's attendance at third-party sponsored trainings and conferences"
  • Pay linked to sales or offers of proprietary products issued by the same firm recommending them

When do wealth managers have to eliminate conflicts of interest

The SEC supplied a couple of instances where the regulator says wealth managers must quash their conflicts. First, at times when an RIA client "cannot provide informed consent" because it's so difficult to "provide full and fair disclosure" of a conflict, the firm should put an end to the practice, according to the bulletin. In addition, some conflicts such as pay programs tied to quotas, benchmarks and "other performance metrics" may make it impossible for a wealth manager to make recommendations in a client's best interest.

"In the staff's view, the greater the reward to the financial professional for meeting particular thresholds (or conversely, the more severe the consequence for failing to meet them), the greater is the concern whether the incentive program complies with Reg BI and the [R]IA fiduciary standard," according to the bulletin.

Conflicts from advisor compensation

Wealth managers "may be required" in certain situations to remove conflicts from their compensation of advisors, according to the guidance. In reviewing advisor pay, firms should examine:
  • Whether their compensation encourages advisors to make recommendations that aren't in clients' best interest
  • Whether profits to the firm are "passing along firm-level conflicts" to the advisors
  • Whether other types of benefits such as trips and meals paid by a fund manager, custodian or another third party create conflicts

Mitigation methods

Wealth managers' periodic reviews must go beyond a comparison with industry practices to ensure their policies are effective. They can reduce or eliminate conflicts by taking steps that include:
  • Minimizing pay incentives for favoring one type of product or account over another
  • Getting rid of some bonuses within "comparable product lines" by capping an advisor's compensation for mutual funds, annuities, REITs or other vehicles
  • Bulking up the monitoring of client accounts whose advisors are approaching those thresholds
  • Tying the pay of advisors to management of conflicts of interest
  • Imposing restrictions on the types of products, transactions or strategies that advisors may recommend
  • Boosting the training and guidance for advisors to act in clients' best interest 

Reviewing product menus

Wealth managers "should consider" regular evaluations of whether limited selections of funds or share classes of those products amounts to a "conflict that could incline the firm or its financial professionals to offer advice or make recommendations that place the interests of the firm or its financial professionals ahead of the retail investor's interest," according to the bulletin.

What is ‘full and fair’ disclosure of conflicts?

The regulator is calling on the industry to explain anything "a reasonable retail investor" would consider important to them.

"The staff believes that disclosures should be specific to each conflict, in 'plain English,' and tailored to, among other things, firms' business models, compensation structures, and products offered at different firms," according to the bulletin. "Stating that a firm 'may' have a conflict when the conflict actually exists is not sufficiently specific to disclose the conflict adequately to retail investors."

How specifically to disclose conflicts

The SEC listed examples of the conflicts that wealth managers must disclose to clients, whether relating to proprietary products, third-party compensation or in wrap-fee accounts or other separately-managed programs. They include:
  • The amount of incentives for the firm or advisor relating to the sale and how much in extra fees the clients are paying due to the conflict
  • Whether the firm or an entity under common ownership manages, issues or sponsors the product and how that affects fees, compensation and any quotas
  • Any arrangements or agreements with fund managers and custodians that affect a product menu or selection of a particular investment vehicle
  • Any possibility that the client might pay a higher cost as a result of investing in a wrap program whose sponsors compensate the wealth manager for participation

Can we stop worrying about this now?

The SEC's answer is a definitive "no." Using a phrase often associated with the long-term, passive investments that have slashed fees on Main Street portfolios while cutting into Wall Street profits, the regulator advises wealth managers to document how their firms are keeping track of conflicts of interest and taking steps to disclose or get rid of them.

"The staff believes that identifying and addressing conflicts is not a 'set it and forget it' exercise," according to the bulletin. "Given that the ultimate goal of establishing policies and procedures to address conflicts of interest is to prevent firms and financial professionals from placing their interests ahead of retail investors' interests, in the staff's view, it is especially important that firms periodically review their recommendations and advice to ensure that this goal is being met."
MORE FROM FINANCIAL PLANNING