SEC Signals Intent for Uniform Fiduciary Standard

The Securities and Exchange Commission has signaled it could move sooner rather than later on its own changes to investment advice and conflict of interest rules.

Media reports are citing comments from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Mary Jo White, to the effect that the SEC will “implement a uniform fiduciary duty for broker/dealers and investment advisers where the standard is to act in the best interest of the investor.”

A number of industry professionals confirmed Chair White’s comments for PLANSPONSOR. The SEC’s move to step more actively into the ongoing fiduciary definition debate, which until now has been centered around the Department of Labor’s own fiduciary rulemaking, could have a big impact, notes Bob Kurucza, co-chair of Goodwin Procter’s financial institutions group and partner in its business law department.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

“I’m not at all surprised that the SEC chair would have this view,” he tells PLANSPONSOR. “While she was very careful to identify that there is some disagreement among the commissioners, notably the two Republican-leaning commissioners, the majority of the commissioners are clearly interested in joining this debate more actively. And they were instructed to do so by Congress [under Section 913 of the Dodd-Frank Act], as you’ll recall.”

As explained by Kurucza, in some ways, a conflict of interest rule change from the SEC would have a wider impact than a similar move from DOL, whose investment fiduciary rule enforcement powers are granted under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): “If the SEC acts to establish a uniform fiduciary duty for advisers and broker/dealers, including brokers not involved in the retirement space, they will all become fiduciaries, across all business models and customer bases. No doubt, this will have a significant impact on people both inside and outside the retirement-specific investment industry.”  

While he can see the “ephemeral appeal to having a unified standard across these markets, in terms of suitability versus fiduciary,” Kurucza echoed the now-familiar warnings about what a strengthened fiduciary standard could do to advice access at the lower-balance end of the market. He believes low-balance savers, whether in a retirement plan or private brokerage account, will become “small potatoes” for advisers and brokers, should they be forced to treat all client relationships as fiduciary relationships.

“Like many others I am worried about the unintended consequences this effort might bring about, despite its intentions of improving the quality of the advice marketplace,” he says. “The low-balance people might not be worth the due diligence work that is required in a fiduciary relationship.”

Kurucza continues by suggesting “most industry practitioners know it can be really subjective and be based on the specific facts and circumstances of a given relationship—whether or not someone is your fiduciary adviser or merely a broker selling you a suitable product.” This will still be the case with a strengthened rule, he feels, especially if the new rules deny this complexity and demand all clients be treated the same. The limits of fiduciary liability will always be tested by some bad apples, he feels, so the entire industry should not be punished to deter bad behavior by a stubborn few.

“There is some well-established industry learning and some settled business practices that will have to be uprooted and overcome, should a much stronger fiduciary standard come into play at SEC,” Kurucza adds. “The current understanding of the fiduciary standard will have to change. If you apply this in the context of compliance officers at advisory firms and brokerages, it’s going to be a lot more detailed and there will be a lot more probing and examination that firms have to do.”

Interestingly, the move from the SEC comes just a few weeks after a number of Republican Congressmen emerged on the side of skeptical financial advisers in opposing the Department of Labor’s fiduciary redefinition effort—introducing ambitious legislation to block changes to the fiduciary standard.

One bill would draw a line and put the SEC at the head of it, allowing the commission to propose its definition of fiduciary first, and stopping the DOL from any rulemaking on a fiduciary definition under ERISA until 60 days after the SEC’s definition takes hold. Again, Dodd-Frank authorizes the SEC to set rules on fiduciary standards of conduct, extending them to broker/dealers.

“There is clearly overlap here between SEC and DOL, so it makes sense they would want to signal they are getting on the same page on a lot of this,” Kurucza says. “Beyond that, there is no doubt in my mind that Chairman White, the DOL and the wider Obama Administration are thinking strengthened rules will be a good thing and will benefit consumers. Many in the industry feel otherwise, so I expect much of the controversy to continue after real rulemaking language emerges, whether at SEC or DOL.”

Younger Workers Lack Feeling of Control over Retirement

Fifty-five percent of Americans younger than 30 feel not saving enough could be the greatest setback on their path to retirement.

Nearly half of Americans younger than 30 (49%) do not feel in control of determining their retirement date, according to the latest COUNTRY Financial Security Index survey.

Among this group, nearly one-third (31%) say that their retirement date is “not at all” in their control.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Reaching a savings goal is the number one concern Americans have regarding their ability to retire, especially among those younger than 30. Nearly half (49%) of Americans feel not saving enough could be the greatest setback on their path to retirement. This number rises to 55% for those younger than 30.

“Fear of the unknown is understandable, younger Americans may be jaded by the slow recession recovery and uncertainty surrounding social security,” says Joe Buhrmann, manager of Financial Security Field Support.

Saving and choosing a retirement age are vital retirement-planning steps, but factoring in how long you will live during retirement should also be added to your plan, according to Buhrmann. People may not be adequately estimating how long they will live in retirement. The majority of Americans (69%) anticipate living more than 15 years in retirement; however, 26% of those younger than 30 anticipate living 30 years or longer in retirement.

"Your retirement plans includes saving, choosing a realistic age and then predicting how long you will live; all three steps are reliant on each other," says Buhrmann.

The survey found the majority of retirees say living the retirement dream is achievable. Many envision an early retirement, but waiting correlates with higher retirement satisfaction, perhaps due to the ability to save longer.   Retirees ages 65 and older are significantly more likely (79%) to say they are living the retirement of their dreams. Early retirees ages 50 to 64, are much less likely (51%) to say they're living their dream retirement.

Retirees with a higher income are also more likely to say they're living the retirement of their dreams, although satisfaction does not rise exponentially with income. Among those with a retirement income of $50,000 to $75,000, a large majority (82%) are living their ideal retirement. Retirement satisfaction peaks among those with a retirement income greater than $75,000 but less than $100,000, with 91% of individuals in this income group living the retirement of their dreams.

The COUNTRY Financial Security Index was created by COUNTRY Financial and is compiled by GfK, an independent research firm. Surveys were conducted using GfK's KnowledgePanel, a national, probability-based panel designed to be representative of the general population and includes responses from approximately 1,000 U.S. adults for national surveys.

Survey data, videos and analysis are available at www.countryfinancialsecurityblog.com.

«