Fiduciary Duty — CFA Institute Issues a Call for Action by SEC
As the SEC and DOL continue their long and winding road toward a uniform fiduciary standard for those who provide personalized investment advice, CFA Institute yesterday called upon the SEC to take immediate action to address investor confusion, enhance investor protections and curtail inappropriate advice-providing by broker-dealers. And the beauty of it is that the SEC can accomplish these things with little cost or disruption to the industry.
CFA Institute Sends Letter to SEC
Investment advisers that are registered with the SEC operate under a fiduciary standard of care. But some financial service providers who offer investment advice and refer to themselves as “financial advisors” operate under a lower standard of care. The proliferation of titles used in the industry has not only caused confusion on the part of investors, but has also allowed some to provide personalized investment advice without a commitment to put their clients’ interests first. Not only do investors lose from advice that fails to put their interests’ first, but when a lack of trust infiltrates a market, the entire industry suffers.
In its letter sent to SEC Chair, Jay Clayton, and SEC Commissioners, CFA Institute urges three approaches that will clarify that only registered investment advisers can provide personalized investment advice, as well as clarify the role of broker-dealers. While the SEC works on a fiduciary duty rulemaking, we believe a three-step- action plan can bridge the current gap in investor understanding about who actually puts investor interests first.
Step 1 — Investment Adviser
First, we recommend that the SEC take a first step to clarify the definition of “investment adviser” in the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act). Specifically, we believe that the definition must apply to all those who provide personalized investment advice. We also encourage the SEC to further expound upon what it believes constitutes “personalized investment advice” so as to better clarify the boundaries for advice providers. Both clarifications could easily be provided through the SEC issuing administrative guidance.
This step will require all such advice providers to register under the Advisers Act and fall under a fiduciary duty standard, regardless of what the title the provider uses to refer to itself.
Step 2 — Incidental Advice
Second, we urge the SEC to clarify that when a broker-dealer providers personalized advice to a client, it is not “incidental” to that broker’s work. Under the Advisers Act rule, a broker-dealer is not an investment adviser when it provides services that are “solely incidental” to its business as a broker-dealer and does not receive special compensation for those services. We understand that the SEC has clear legal authority to define what is “incidental” for these purposes by issuing administrative guidance.
We believe that brokers rely on this “incidental” provision to provide personalized advice that exceeds what is clearly incidental. Moreover, a number of providers use titles (e.g., “financial advisor”) that imply personalized advice. Over the years, investors have continued to express confusion about what titles correlate with what standard of care. In addition to clarification, we urge the SEC and/or FINRA to increase its efforts to ensure compliance with the rules by broker-dealers.
Clarifying that providing personalized investment advice, or implying such advice through the title “financial advisor” is not incidental to the work of a broker will end misplaced reliance by brokers on this section of the Advisers Act and send a clear message that brokers must come into compliance with the new guidance on personalized advice and titles.
Step 3 — Agent Disclosure
Third, we ask the SEC to require prominent, clear, consistent and ongoing disclosure to their clients that they are agents of the brokerage firm that employs them, and that they do not legally represent their clients’ interests. If these agents (registered representatives of firms) want to refer to themselves as financial advisors/advisers, we believe they should be required to register as investment advisers and abide by the applicable standard of conduct.
Clear and unequivocal disclosure, when coupled with the clarifications discussed above, will play an important step in enhancing investor protections by helping investors understand the standard of care they can expect from their service providers.
Investors deserve to know the standard under which advice providers operate when providing them with personalized investment advice. Yet, while recognized as a problem for years, neither the SEC nor the DOL has successfully implemented a rule to address this issue. While these two agencies continue to work on a standard applicable to both retirement and non-retirement assets, we believe much can be done through administrative guidance and without changing service provider business models. It’s time to move the needle forward.
If you liked this post, consider subscribing to Market Integrity Insights.
Photo Credit: ©Getty Images/MCCAIG
4 thoughts on “Fiduciary Duty — CFA Institute Issues a Call for Action by SEC”
Where is the call to action against high frequency trading? Institutional investors are all getting fleeced by it and CFA Institute pretends it isn’t happening by doing studies with faulty data. Why isn’t the CFA Institute standing by money managers and demanding change from the SEC about that?
If an investment professional has a title that implies acting in a fiduciary role, they should act as a fiduciary. Such titles include: Porfolio Manager, Investment Advisor, Financial Advisor, Financial Consultant or similar. There are probably many more. If an investment professional has a title that does not imply acting in a fiduciary role, they should only have to adhere to the suitability standard. However, one would hope they would act in their clients’ best interest. Such titles include: Stock Broker, Bond Broker, Registered Securities Rep or similar. I am sure a critic can pick holes in my nomenclature argument as being too simplistic. However, the real harm occurs when an investment professional presents to the investing public that they act in their clients’ best interest, but they don’t in fact act in their clients’ best interest.
Simple solution. The legal definitions between an investment adviser and a registered representative are clear. One has to adhere to the fiduciary rule, and the other is a salesperson and buyer beware.
Magnificent and worthy information..!