Bic Agreement
In fact, that`s arguably the whole point of principles-based fiduciary regulation – not prescribing an endless set of “accurately” written regulatory rules that only invite industry participants to push the boundaries of the line without rolling a toe – and instead creates the kind of principled guidelines with a level of ambiguity that requires companies to: change their culture. for fear of being found guilty retrospectively (combined with the total prohibition of certain problematic behaviours, . B such as eliminating sales contests and forcing others such as revenue-sharing agreements under the table in the light of day). Finally, in a fiduciary context, receiving a payment from a third party – that is, a commission – usually a conflict of interest that is prohibited, as well as income-sharing agreements with investment providers that may inappropriately encourage financial advisors to recommend certain investments to others. Theoretically, even asking a client to deploy money from an existing retirement account and into an advisor-managed account can be a conflict of interest – albeit the most basic for anyone in the “business” of being a trustee – since the trustee is not paid into the existing account, but would be paid to provide fiduciary advice to the new recommended account. (Michael`s note: The Ministry of Labor`s new fiduciary rule is expected to undergo several interpretation cycles in the coming months, with possible updates to the guidelines by the DoL. This post will be updated as new interpretations are uncovered and new guidelines are made available to remain a resource for the Best Interest Agreement (BICE) exemption and requirements for entering into a Best Interest Agreement (BIC) with clients.) In other words, fiduciary critics have lamented that the DoL`s final rule reduces the depth of initial disclosures, allows the CIB to be easily included in advisory agreements and new accounts, and eliminates the list of restricted assets (opening the door to both controversial illiquid products such as untraded REITs and high-commission products such as certain variable annuities and indexed to shares, and exclusive products). But as long as the fundamental rule of trust and its application remain intact, these concessions may not have been concessions at all. It simply means that instead of regulating against these products and scenarios, the DoL will impose the problem on the courts through class actions and let future judges clarify what really works and what doesn`t! Specifically, the new ETP is called the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE). BICE effectively states that the fiduciary advisor must sign a “best interest agreement” (BIC) with the client, which states that the advisor will provide advice in the best interests of the client.
If the Advisor enters into a BIC agreement with the Client and complies with the necessary provisions, transactions otherwise prohibited – by .B. if the Advisor recommends a rotation, which he will then manage and pay – are now allowed. In what was seen as an important concession to the industry, the actual execution of the BIC agreement itself (for those who provide investment fiduciary advice and are not level fee trustees) has been significantly accelerated in the final rule. Therefore, advisors who received additional commissions when a client selected a particular product could conflict if similar products that did not pay a commission are considered comparable. BICE allowed the advisor to continue to receive this commission if he entered into a contractual agreement stating that he would act in the best interests of the client and avoid any misrepresentation of options. In particular, a key aspect of the policies and procedures is that financial institutions are excluded from “quotas, evaluations, performance or endowment measures, bonuses, competitions, special bonuses, differential compensation or other measures or incentives designed to induce or reasonably expect advisors to make recommendations that are not in the best interests of the retired investor.” This can lead to a significant reform of the remuneration of the number of financial services institutions, in particular their brokers, as it can prevent a wide range of common practices, from quota requirements to validate a sales contract to bonuses for certain sales volumes to incentives to sell a particular range of products compared to another (resulting in differentiated remuneration). etc. And the fact that the rules affect not only the remuneration of the consultant, but also that of the financial institution, its affiliates and affiliates means that even behind the scenes, differentiated remuneration (for example. B, a wide range of common land and revenue sharing agreements) is likely to be excluded under the new policy and procedural requirement. (It should be noted, however, that not all differentiated compensation is completely excluded, as different products with differentiated compensation may coexist in terms of content, provided that the financial institution can demonstrate that it does not unreasonably influence the advisor`s recommendations.) In particular, to qualify as a level fee trustee, the advisor would not already need to be an RIA receiving AUM fees. This can be a broker who receives a level fee higher than the 12(b)-1 fee or as compensation for a fee-based wrap account. However, in order to be eligible for the level fee fiduciary exception, the advisor – and the financial institution and its related parties and affiliates – may only receive these tier fees and no other commissions or compensation related to the transaction.
Therefore, adding 12(b)-1 fees on top of fee compensation would be problematic, as would other types of revenue sharing agreements (disqualifying the commitment of eligibility for the fiduciary exemption from level fees and requiring the company to follow and rely on the entire best interest contract instead). Essentially, the Ministry of Labour collectively told the financial services industry, “You claim that you can still offer consumers illiquid, commission-based, exclusive products while securing revenue-sharing agreements while acting as a trustee in the best interests of the client? Ok. You can prove it to the judge when the time comes. In the long run, it is entirely possible (and I think likely!) that most advisors will end up following the path of a level fee trustee to avoid both the BIC agreement requirement and the policies and procedures that come with it. In other words, like the rules applicable to RIAs that are held, an investment advisor may hold the assets of his clients, but he is subject to significant additional scrutiny in the process, so that in practice, most RIAs simply avoid custody to avoid additional requirements for retention compliance. The tariff-tier fiduciary safe harbor is likely to have similar effects over time. On April 6, 2016, the professional financial consulting world took its first step into the future with the issuance of a Ministry of Labor (DoL) fiduciary rule, which states that brokers can no longer earn commissions and other forms of compensation for conflicting advice from consumers unless they agree to do so in accordance with a Best Interest Agreement (BIC) with the client. that requires the advisory service provider to provide advice in accordance with a fiduciary standard in the “best interest” of the client, to receive “reasonable compensation” and to ensure appropriate disclosure and transparency about the products and associated compensation. In practice, the first two points would be covered by the Best Interest Agreement (BIC) with the client, while the other three would become an obligation of the financial institution itself (or lose its eligibility for BICE). Essentially, financial services companies have argued that they can often offer consumers illiquid and opaque, commission-based and sometimes even proprietary products, while receiving revenue-sharing agreements while acting as trustees in the best interests of the client.
And so the response from the Ministry of Labor was, “Good. If consumers disagree, you have the option to prove it to the judge when the time comes. In other words, while the DoL escrow rule does not directly regulate what Wall Street can and cannot do, it has changed the legal standard that all Wall Street shares are judged and has ensured that the courts will eventually have the ability to rule on these fiduciary disputes. And in the long run, it will be a big difference. Fiduciary counsel lamented that the Ministry of Labor recognized several important points in its final DoL fiduciary rule, including the deferral of a number of important disclosures to be made available “upon request” or on the financial institution`s website (but not directly to the client), and the inclusion of the best interest agreement in existing advisory agreements and new accounts (rather than in the form of an escrow agreement). distinct). and not introduce a “restricted asset list” and instead keep the door open for everything from controversial illiquid products like untraded REITs, high-commission products like some variable and equity-linked bonds, and companies implementing their own proprietary products as a “recommendation” at the end of each financial plan. However, if these requirements are met, the entity does not have to meet the full scope of the BIC agreement and the full scope of the disclosure requirements of the policies and procedures for the financial institution (as there would likely be fewer material conflicts of interest that would have to be disclosed at all for the level fee trustee).
.
- Posted by adriel
- On January 29, 2022
0 Comments