Regulatory
Advisors React to FINRA’s New Suitability Rule; Problems Likely For Dually Registered Advisors
Thursday, July 12, 2012 00:00

Tags: dually registered | registered reps | RIAs

It’s official. FINRA Rule 2111, which was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in November 2010, and went into effect this week, July 9, 2012 to be precise, is now the law, or should we say, the rule of the broker-dealer land.

This Website Is For Financial Professionals Only


For those unfamiliar, it’s the rule that governs suitability, and it applies to registered representatives and dually registered advisors, and their firms.

The previous suitability rule (Rule 2310) – sometimes referred to as the ‘know your customer’ rule, stated:

In recommending to a customer the purchase, sale or exchange of any security, a member shall have reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is suitable for such customer upon the basis of the facts, if any, disclosed by such customer as to his other security holdings and as to his financial situation and needs.

Under the new Rule 2111, there is a broadening of scope of what constitutes a “recommendation” by including the recommendation of either an “investment strategy” or “transaction” that involves a security or securities. An associated person shall:

Have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommended transaction or investment strategy involving a security or securities is suitable for the customer, based on the information obtained through the reasonable diligence of the member or associated person to ascertain the customer's investment profile.

The Financial Planning Association (FPA) stated in a notice sent out this week what the changes mean to members of the association.

“The rule expands the information that an associated person must attempt to gather to determine suitability to include age, investment experience, time horizon, liquidity needs and risk tolerance. A member or associated person must make reasonable efforts to obtain and analyze the factors unless they have ‘a reasonable basis to believe, documented in writing’ that such omitted factor(s) is not relevant to suitability.

“Additionally, Rule 2111 expands a broker-dealer’s suitability obligations by defining three separate suitability assessments that the associated person is required to undertake. These three components of the overall suitability analysis require the associated person to have an understanding of the recommendation, of the customer’s investment profile, and of the customer’s overall portfolio and transaction history before any recommendation is made.

“Reasonable-Basis Suitability: This is general product suitability. The member/associated person must ‘have a reasonable basis to believe, based upon reasonable diligence, that the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors.’ The amount of due diligence required to form a ‘reasonable basis’ will vary depending on each customer, including the complexity of the product at issue and the associated person’s familiarity with the security or investment strategy. Reasonable due diligence requires that a member or associated person must at least understand the potential risks and rewards before making any recommendations about a particular security or strategy.

“Customer-Specific Suitability: This is what was traditionally considered a suitability analysis, but it is now done based on Rule 2111 instead of Rule 2310.

“Quantitative Suitability: This can be viewed as frequency of trading suitability. This obligation requires an associated person who has de facto or actual control over a customer account to have ‘a reasonable basis for believing that a series of recommended transactions, even if suitable when viewed in isolation, are not excessive and unsuitable for the customer when taken together in light of the customer’s investment profile.’

“The rule also makes it clear that the term ‘investment strategy’ is to be interpreted broadly and covers explicit recommendations to hold a security, not just those to buy or sell a security.”

Here’s FINRA’s guidance on Rule 2111.

For this report, we asked RIAs, dually registered advisors, and registered reps about FINRA’s new suitability rule: What’s good about it? What’s bad? And does it help investors? Here’s what they had to say.

FINRA’s new rule won’t affect RIAs since they are not regulated – or at least they’re not at the moment– by FINRA. But it will affect dually registered advisors in at least three significant ways according Ron Rhoades, JD, CFP, who is chair of the financial planning program and an assistant professor at Alfred State College, SUNY, as well as the chair of NAPFA.

First, they will have to document ‘hold’ recommendations, and be potentially on the hook for such recommendations, Rhoades says.

Second, the emphasis of FINRA in acting in the client's ‘best interests’ is likely to cause a lot of confusion as to whether fiduciary duties apply, Rhoades says.

And third, and perhaps most important, FINRA's imposition of requirements regarding suitability of ‘investment strategy’ may - just possibly may - be interpreted at some future time to require due diligence on investment strategies, communication to clients of a portfolio investment strategy, and the like, Rhoades says.

“This sounds a lot like non-incidental advice,” says Rhoades.  “In fact, I would say that communicating a strategic asset allocation plan, or tactical asset allocation plan, to a client, is an ‘investment advisory’ activity likely leading to the imposition of fiduciary status under state common law ... especially if an ongoing relationship with a client is established (and regardless of whether the customer's accounts are defined to be ‘brokerage accounts’ and not ‘investment advisory’ accounts).  As a result, I see registered representatives using Investment Policy Statements.  I also see them seeking, perhaps, to avoid the issue (and ambiguity) of whether they may be considered fiduciaries, and just using their investment advisory platforms more.”

For his part, Richard C. Salmen, CFP, CFA, EA, a senior vice president and senior advisor with GTRUST Financial Partners, says FINRA’s motives are somewhat clear with regard to the new suitability rule. “It’s not a big stretch, in my opinion, that FINRA promulgated this new rule in order to step closer to a fiduciary standard without really going there,” he says.

His biggest concern though is the ambiguity of the rule for registered reps and dually registered reps around the term “reasonable diligence.”

“Those types of ambiguous terms generally have to go through a series of rulings and interpretations before we really know what the new standard is,” Salmen says. “That is not really a knock against FINRA, just against the use of such terms when setting standards.”

Of course, FINRA’s new rule, while it might be step closer to a fiduciary standard, still falls short of being the real deal, and some say it creates more confusion than not. “These rules are supposed to simplify but they just seen to get widened instead,” says Dave Caruso, CFP, founding chairman and managing director of Coastal Capital Group. “I think we need a common single voice and interpretation for the public to understand. But it’s like politics in that it’s talked about but never seems to get resolved, even with the important stuff.”

It might not get resolved, but hope can and does spring eternal. “I look forward to the day when all who give investment advice to the public are held to a standard of putting the client’s interests first regardless of compensation method,” says Salmen.

What are your thoughts on how this will affect your practice? Do you think it will affect the SEC’s current efforts to create a fiduciary rule for everyone who provides investment advice? Comment below.

Read more...
 
Dodd-Frank Legislation To Be Reviewed During Entire Month Of July
Tuesday, July 10, 2012 14:24

Tags: Congress | Dodd-Frank | regulation | sec

As its two-year anniversary approaches, the benefits of the Dodd-Frank legislation are being examined—and questioned. The House Financial Services Committee led by Spencer Bachus (R-AL) is challenging the merits of the legislation, saying its tenets are proving to be more of a burden than a boon to American financial markets and investors.

This Website Is For Financial Professionals Only


 
The legislation created over 400 new rules for American companies. It is 2300 pages long. The bill that Bachus and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) reintroduced in April to create an external SRO is being viewed as an alternative to Dodd-Frank, with supporters claiming Dodd-Frank places undue hardship on businesses with no real reform benefit to Wall Street.
 
Formulation of the required 398 rules are slow in the offing with 221 of those rules already past the deadlines imposed. Only 119 rules have been finalized and 142 rulemaking requirements have yet to be proposed.
 
The Capital Markets and the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit subcommittees will each hold hearings on the Dodd-Frank legislation in July. They will examine the impact the law has had on home mortgage reforms, consumers, credit, and job creators.
 
A4A will keep you updated on the hearings throughout the month as they progress.

Read more...
 
Why Is CalPERS Always Getting Appointed To Head Investor Protection Efforts? If You Want To Protect Investors, Aren’t There Other Capable Representatives Less Politically Entwined?
Saturday, June 16, 2012 16:53

CalPERS Chief Investment Officer Joe Dear Wednesday was named chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission's new investor advisory committee. Why? If you really want to protect retail investors, why appoint a huge institutional investor that's so engrained in the current Wall Street regulatory regime? 

This Website Is For Financial Professionals Only



According to FINalternatives, the 21-member committee replaces a committee disbanded after the Dodd-Frank Act became law. It will advise the Commission on regulatory priorities, the regulation of securities products, trading strategies, fee structures, the effectiveness of disclosure and on initiatives to protect investor interests and to promote investor confidence and the integrity of the securities marketplace.

 

At its inaugural meeting, the committee was urged by SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar to focus its attention on retail investors, who he said lack confidence in the financial markets and increasingly feel that Wall Street is “rigged against” them, Investment News reported.

 

But Aguilar is gives little more than lip service to addressing investor protection issues. If investors are truly facing a crisis of confidence, appointing the head of CalPERS does little to change the situation. CalPERS has carried the torch for investor protection for many years and what do investors have to show for it? Is Wall Street cleaned up?

 

CalPERS is a huge institution that has its heart in the right place. It is a good institution. But it is too engrained in Washington politics to represent retail investors. Apart from the obvious fact that CalPERS itself is an institutional investor, another investor protection advocates could have been called upon to chair this key investor protection committee — someone without so much baggage and who has not played such a central role in the current institutional framework.

 

If Aguilar and the Commission want to do more than just flap their lips about strengthening investor confidence in the markets, we’d see more change in the institutional leadership around the SEC, which includes CalPERS.  To change the system that created the problem, you can’t expect the very institutions that helped create the current system to lead the charge.  

 

The irony of naming CalPERS to head the new SEC investor protection committee is poignantly on display in a comment on a discussion board at the website for The Sacramento Bee, which posted a five-sentence story about the SEC Investor Advisory Committee’s inaugural meeting earlier this week:    

 

“Let's see how Dear explains CalPERS' extraordinary losses in FNMAE and Freddie Mac- Bought at $50 to $70 per share, but held all the way down to $1.00. 

“It only cost CalPERS members $300,000,000 or so.

CalPERS told me those stocks were part of an index they needed to track and so they couldn't sell--what insanity!!

The problem is, those stocks are only the tip of the iceberg....”

Read more...
 
SEC's New Investor Advisor Committee Focuses On Investor Needs Rather Than Fiducairy Status Of Intermediaries
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 15:42

Tags: Dodd-Frank | regulation | sec

Protecting retail investors and bolstering their confidence in the marketplace is the focus of the Investor Advisory Committee as it meets for the first time on Tuesday, June 13. SEC head Mary Schapiro feels the committee will be very instrumental in helping the SEC formulate its new definition and requirements for fiduciaries.

 

Consumer advocate Barbara Roper claims the greater benefit for retail investors would be to focus on regulating intermediaries from the standpoint of their fiduciary status.

This Website Is For Financial Professionals Only


 
An Investor Advisory Committee was formed by the SEC in 2009 but the current committee conforms to mandates issued by the Dodd-Frank Act. Since individual investors are the primary source of capital for securities markets, it was argued that the focus on their needs would be the appropriate focus for the committee’s inaugural meeting.
 
The argument was based on the recent trend of investors to pull money out of equity mutual funds. The unwillingness of retail investors to be involved in the equities markets could reflect a shift in investment focus by the Baby Boomer generation as it ages. However, concern remains that retail investors may feel that the exchanges are geared heavily to benefit Wall Street firms instead of creating a level playing field for individuals.
 
Such concerns by individual investors could inhibit capital formation through investment in the equities markets. Allaying those concerns is, therefore, the top priority of the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee.

 

Read more...
 
Congressional Hearing On Bachus-McCarthy Bill Yields Inconlusive Delay
Thursday, June 07, 2012 13:13

Tags: Congress | Dodd-Frank | FINRA | sec

Testimony during the Congressional hearing June 6 on the Bachus-McCarthy bill, the Investment Advisor Oversight Act of 2012, was divided along industry lines. The overall consensus was, however, that the bill was insufficient and would impose too great a cost burden on smaller firms.

This Website Is For Financial Professionals Only


 
Additional funding for the SEC was another focal point of the discussion. The House Financial Services Committee, the same committee sponsoring the Bachus-McCarthy bill—approved additional funding for the SEC in 2013 the day before the hearing. Yet the amount was $195 million less than requested by President Obama.
 
Although the bill was submitted in bipartisan fashion, the witnesses seemed to be unevenly representative of the brokerage side. At least, consumer advocate Barbara Roper thought so, as we highlighted in the June 6 post. Those arguing in favor of the bill were:
 
Dale Brown, president/CEO of the Financial Services Institute (FSI)
Thomas Curry, past president of NAIFA
Chet Helck, head of Raymond James’ Global Private Client Group
Richard Ketchum, chairman and CEO of FINRA
 
Those arguing against the bill were:
 
John Morgan, Securities Commissioner of Texas and representing the NASAA
David Tittsworth, Executive Director of the Investment Advisors Association (IAA)
 
The argument for the bill was that the industry needs more oversight of retail investment advisors to better protect individual investors. It was also argued that the bill would restore oversight that is already mandated and which the SEC seems unable to provide instead of adding more regulation.
 
Opponents of the bill said it would unfairly penalize small firms and would add redundancy to the regulatory process for advisors subject to state oversight.
 
Mary Shapiro, head of the SEC, noted that with all the new regulatory mandates from the Dodd-Frank Act and the increased focus on the municipal market, she questions whether the SEC would have the wherewithal to adequately oversee FINRA, as well. FINRA has stepped forward in an attempt to garner the appointed SRO spot outlined by the Bachus-McCarthy bill.
 
The ultimate result of the hearing is that enough questions arose to delay its approval from the expected late June date to possibly fall. The hearing seemed to open the door for a great deal more commentary from the industry and also to input on how to improve the bill to make it truly effective and less burdensome.

Read more...
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 7 of 30

Login

Banner
Banner
Banner

Comments

Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner