DOL releases additional guidance on fiduciary rule in the waning days of the Obama administration.
The US Department of Labor (DOL) has released two new sets of frequently-asked-questions (FAQs) regarding the conflict of interest final rule on fiduciary investment advice. An earlier set of FAQs was released in October 2016 and focused on the exemptions the DOL released along with its rule redefining fiduciary investment advice (see our coverage here and here).
One of the new sets of FAQs focuses on the new definition of fiduciary investment advice itself. Major topics covered include
These 35 FAQs respond to a number of questions raised to the DOL. For example, several questions deal with the extent to which explanations of plan contribution and distribution rules avoid being viewed as investment recommendations under the rule.
The other set is directed at retirement investors and consumers, covering consumer protection features of the new rule.
This set of FAQs describes the reasons that the DOL considered the conflict of interest rule to be necessary, and seeks to address a number of questions and concerns that have been raised. For example, the FAQ guidance explains that while the rule will require changes in the financial services industry that the DOL believes will better protect retirement savings, it will not require advisers to move clients from commission-based accounts to fee-based accounts, and it does not mean that a financial adviser must always identify the “absolute best product” or be liable any time an investment loses money (so long as the financial adviser meets the “best interest” standard).
There has been speculation as to what might happen to the DOL fiduciary investment advice rule after the transition to the new US presidential administration. Many past administrations taking office have delayed the effective date of any rules adopted toward the end of the prior administration that were not yet in effect.
While the DOL rule is already effective, it is widely expected that the new administration will postpone the applicability date of April 10, 2017, giving time for the DOL under the new administration to reconsider the rule and for the US Congress to act on the subject matter. There already has been a bill proposed in Congress to delay the rule for two years, and other proposals are expected to emerge shortly.
We should have a better sense after the new administration takes office—possibly as early as the week of January 23. In the meantime, until there is clear action on a delay, many firms are continuing to move forward with their plans for compliance to avoid getting caught unprepared if the rule and its April 10 applicability date remain unchanged.
Morgan Lewis is evaluating these FAQs and their impact on our clients and the industry.
Morgan Lewis is continuing to closely follow developments on this rule and will provide updates as new information becomes available. Click on any of the links below to read prior Morgan Lewis thought leadership covering the rule to date:
If you have any questions or would like more information on the issues discussed in this LawFlash, please contact any of the following Morgan Lewis lawyers:
Boston
Lisa H. Barton
T. Peter R. Pound
Chicago
Marla J. Kreindler
Julie K. Stapel
New York
Craig A. Bitman
Barbara D. Klippert
Philadelphia
Robert L. Abramowitz
David B. Zelikoff
Pittsburgh
John G. Ferreira
R. Randall Tracht
Washington, DC
Rosina Barker
Katrina L. Berishaj
Lindsay B. Jackson
Daniel R. Kleinman
Christina Payne-Tsoupros
Michael B. Richman
Steven W. Stone