United States: Commenters React To DOL's Proposed Expansion Of Fiduciary-Duty Rules

Four months after proposing a significantly expanded definition specifying when "investment advice" to employee plans and IRAs would give rise to fiduciary status under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Department of Labor has its hands full grappling with comments on the multi-faceted proposal. The DOL received over 2,600 comment letters on the proposal and heard testimony from over 70 witnesses during public hearings from August 10 to August 13 in Washington D.C. This Alert describes some of the leading themes in the comment letters and the public hearings, focusing on the concerns of the regulated community.


The Department's proposal would significantly expand the scope of fiduciary activity by redefining what constitutes "investment advice" under ERISA. In connection with the proposed regulation, the Department proposed a new exemption referred to as the Best Interest Contract ("BIC") Exemption. The proposed BIC Exemption is designed to work in conjunction with the proposed definition of investment advice to facilitate the provision of investment advice to small plans, plan participants, and IRA owners, but is available only on satisfying a number of stringent requirements and would only be available for advice rendered with respect to certain asset classes. At the same time, the Department proposed to amend six prohibited transaction exemptions ("PTEs") in an effort to incorporate the best interest standard of the BIC Exemption. The Department also solicited comments about, but did not formally propose, a separate "streamlined exemption" that would make it easier for advisers to receive fees in connection with index funds and other "high-quality," "low-fee" investments. A more comprehensive summary of the DOL's proposed regulation and exemptions can be found here.

Summary of Public Comments

A common theme among the comment letters the Department received – letters both in favor and opposed to the proposal – was that financial advisers should act in their clients' best interest. However, different commenters seemed to understand that standard in different ways, as was noted at the public hearings.

Comment letters from citizens and plan participant organizations such as AARP and the Pension Rights Center voiced strong support for the proposal. Their letters argued that the definition of investment advice and the proposed BIC Exemption offered needed protection to participants.

Comment letters opposed to the proposal varied in their reasons for opposition. Several commenters warned that the proposal could cause many firms to withdraw from the business of providing advice to small savers. A few questioned the Department's authority for issuing parts of the proposed guidance and the process that the Department undertook to issue the guidance. A greater number of letters criticized technical aspects of the proposed regulation and BIC Exemption and expressed concerns about the potential impact of the overall proposal on various aspects of the retirement industry. The DOL focused predominantly on these criticisms at the public hearings, and this Alert will do likewise.

The Department's Authority

Several commenters expressed concern's about the Department exceeding the scope of its legal authority.

  • Distributions: A number of comment letters expressed the view that the Department's proposed definition of investment advice, which would pick up advice with respect to distributions from a plan, is broader than contemplated by the statutory definition in ERISA, which makes a person a fiduciary to the extent the person "renders investment advice for a fee or other compensation." The commenters contend that advice with respect to distributions from a plan is different from "investment advice for a fee."
  • IRAs: Many commenters took direct aim at the Department's authority to regulate IRAs, which have historically been regulated by the Treasury Department. While the Department's proposal does not regulate IRAs directly, the proposal would indirectly regulate conduct through the Department's authority to define prohibited transactions. At least one commenter noted that IRAs are already regulated by federal securities laws and banking regulators and that additional regulation of broker-dealers by the Department was unnecessary.
  • Broker-Dealers: Many commenters expressed concerns about overlapping regulations, specifically with respect to federal securities laws. Section 913 of the Dodd-Frank Act grants the SEC the authority to implement a uniform fiduciary standard of care for investment advisers and broker-dealers. As a result, numerous banks and asset managers encouraged the Department to let the SEC take the lead in this area and also to defer to FINRA's existing regulatory standards for broker-dealers.

The Department's Process

Other comment letters challenged the Department's rulemaking process, primarily on the bases described below.

  • Regulatory Impact Analysis: Several commenters challenged the findings of the Department's regulatory impact analysis released in conjunction with the proposal. That analysis concluded that the proposal would result in net gains to retirement investors of tens of billions of dollars over a 10-year period. Commenters opined that the Department failed to consider alternative options, ignored key statistics or studies, and grossly underestimated the costs and overestimated the benefits associated with implementing the rule. Several interested parties commissioned separate studies to refute parts of the Department's analysis.
  • BIC Exemption: Commenters expressed their view that the Department had not done enough to determine the feasibility of the BIC Exemption.
  • Streamlined Exemption: Many commenters took issue with the Department's proposal for a "streamlined exemption" as being too vague and requested that the Department issue a separate, more detailed proposal. Other commenters disagreed with the idea of a "streamlined exemption," reasoning that the Department would be favoring passive investment over active investment.

Comments on the Proposed Regulation

Comment letters in opposition to the Department's guidance frequently focused on the proposed redefinition of fiduciary investment advice under ERISA. Under the proposal, investment advice would consist of various types of recommendations or advice for a fee or other compensation that are given with an understanding that the advice is "specifically directed to" an advice recipient "for consideration in making investment or management decisions."

  • Definition of Recommendation: Comments in opposition to the definition were nearly unanimous in arguing that it was too broad in scope. Criticism focused on the proposal that a communication reasonably viewed as a "suggestion" to take a course of action would be viewed as a "recommendation" giving rise to fiduciary status. During the hearings, Deputy Assistant Secretary Tim Hauser acknowledged these criticisms and stated that the Department intended to follow FINRA's overall facts and circumstances approach, rather than looking at whether there was a "suggestion" in isolation, and that a recommendation would need to include a "call to action."
  • No Mutuality Standard: A pervasive concern in comment letters opposed to the proposal was that under the proposal, a participant or investor need only consider the advice in making an investment decision. The existing standard, by contrast, defines investment advice as the product of a "mutual" understanding that the advice would serve as the "primary basis" for investment decisions. Many commenters expressed concern that the elimination of the "mutuality" requirement made the definition subjective and would unnecessarily – and in many instances unknowingly – expose individuals to fiduciary status for making a sales pitch or an off-hand remark about a particular investment.
  • Concern over "Specifically Directed": Still other commenters expressed concern about the "specifically directed" language in the proposal. The concern was that the "specifically directed" language might qualify any mass mailing or marketing communication as "investment advice" and subject the sender or marketer to fiduciary status.
  • Impact on Requests for Proposals: Numerous commenters expressed concern that responses to Requests for Proposals ("RFPs") would be viewed as investment advice, which could adversely affect parties' willingness to engage in competitive bidding processes. RFPs are frequently used to seek competitive bids from asset managers or service providers, and are often considered a best practice in the retirement and investment industry.
  • Asset Allocation Models: Commenters and witnesses raised concerns regarding the "investment education" carve-out to the proposed fiduciary definition. The proposal would allow parties to present asset allocation models without becoming fiduciaries but, in a reversal of current DOL guidance, the "investment education" exception would not apply if the allocation model named specific investments. Many commenters and witnesses took issue with this approach as unhelpful to retirement investors.

Comments on the Proposed BIC Exemption

Many of comment letters in opposition to the proposal offered criticism of the BIC Exemption, and a number of letters focused exclusively on the BIC Exemption. Commenters opposed to the BIC Exemption generally argued that the limited scope of the Exemption, which applies to specific investments and would not apply to fiduciaries of participant-directed plans, coupled with its stringent requirements, made the Exemption unworkable as proposed and/or would impose significant costs on the industry and, in turn, on participants.

  • Contracts: To rely on the BIC Exemption, fiduciaries would be required to enter into a bilateral contract with the plan or participant before providing investment advice. A common suggested alternative from the retirement industry was the use of a unilateral contract and a requirement that the contract be effective not prior to the recommendation, as proposed, but only prior to the transaction that results from the advice. Such an arrangement would alleviate the logistical difficulties of two or more parties entering into a written contract for each of the tens of millions of transactions that could potentially be covered by the proposed Exemption.
  • Disclosures: Under the BIC Exemption, the advice provider would be required, among other things, to disclose the projected performance of the investments available to the investor for 1-, 5-, and 10-year periods. The fiduciary would also be required to disclose through a public webpage the compensation paid in connection with each investment available to purchase, hold, or sell through the adviser or financial institution. Commenters opposed to the BIC Exemption overwhelmingly opposed the disclosure regime as impractical and costly, emphasizing the difficulty of projecting the future performance of investments and noting that projecting future performance likely violates existing FINRA guidance. Many commenters expressed support for supplementing the existing service provider fee disclosures to meet the disclosure requirements under the BIC Exemption.
  • Arbitration: Several witnesses at the hearings who generally supported the proposal criticized the permissibility of mandatory arbitration provisions in contracts issued under the BIC Exemption. As proposed, the BIC Exemption permits the best interest contract to require the parties to submit to mandatory arbitration in non-class action cases. Witnesses testified that such a requirement would limit individuals' ability to pursue their claims, with one referring to it as a "fatal flaw." Witnesses also expressed concern about the transparency and neutrality of the arbitration proceedings.

Comments on the Impact of the Proposed Guidance

Many of the comment letters in opposition to the Department's guidance discussed what the commenters perceived to be the overall impact the guidance would have on Americans' retirement savings.

  • Individuals, IRAs and Small Businesses: The most prevalent criticism the DOL received on the overall impact of the proposal was that the guidance as a whole would severely limit investment advice for individuals and small businesses – a hotly contested point. The critics warned against imposing fiduciary responsibilities on more advisers who would be unable to receive relief from prohibited transactions in light of the burden of the BIC Exemption. Commenters reasoned that advisers would be less likely to service participants with small plan account balances and small businesses because the compensation they would receive would not outweigh the regulatory burdens. However, several witnesses at the hearings stated that their organization would happily step up to assist smaller retirement savers. Many comment letters noted that the BIC Exemption does not appear to provide relief for a prohibited transaction related to IRA rollovers, and asked the DOL to clarify this point.
  • Private Funds: Several comment letters expressed concern about the proposed regulation's effect on private funds. The letters noted that the proposed definition of investment advice could make private fund managers fiduciaries when they provide valuations to IRA or plan investors, including a fund's net asset value. Commenters also focused on exceptions or carve-outs to the definition of fiduciary investment advice, including a carve-out for "sophisticated investors," which the DOL defined in part to include fiduciaries that manage at least $100 million in plan assets. Several comment letters criticized the $100 million threshold as too high. At the hearing, following the lead of numerous comment letters, the Department inquired whether the SEC's accredited investor test would serve as a good measure for a sophisticated investor.
  • Lifetime Income Products: Many insurance companies and trade associations requested that the Department revise the proposed BIC Exemption or PTE 84-24 to avoid adverse impacts on the sale of variable annuities. As proposed, amended PTE 84-24 would no longer provide an exemption for sales of variable annuities, and commenters noted that the BIC Exemption would be effectively unavailable to variable annuities. Comment letters and a significant amount of testimony focused on the fact that sales of variable annuities fulfill the Department's policy goal of providing middle-income individuals with investments that provide lifetime income. In response, Mr. Hauser asked several witnesses whether a separate and perhaps simpler exemption for annuities would alleviate this concern.
  • Call Centers: A number of service providers and employer organizations commented that they would not be able to provide rollover and education services through call centers. Some of the same commenters explained how the broad scope of the proposed regulation would define investment advice to include many of the services that call centers currently provide. Since entering into the written contract required by the BIC Exemption is impractical for call center representatives and their customers, commenters indicated they may be forced to curtail their call center services due to the expanded liabilities they would face under the new guidance.

Going Forward

The Department's proposed guidance states that the proposed regulation and exemptions would be effective eight months following the date they are finalized. This so-called "applicability date" prompted numerous comments objecting to the implementation timeline and requesting grandfathering of existing accounts.

It is possible that the retirement industry could challenge the proposal in court, which could delay the "applicability date." While no lawsuit has been filed, several comment letters appeared to outline legal challenges to the Department's economic analysis or the Department's authority to implement the proposal.

Meanwhile, the proposal has sparked debate in Congress. In February, Representative Ann Wagner (R-MO) reintroduced the Retail Investor Protection Act (H.R. 1090), which would prohibit the DOL from finalizing its proposal until the SEC finalizes regulations in this area. Representative Wagner's bill has not yet advanced to a vote of either the House Financial Services or Education and Workforce Committee. Appropriations bills containing riders prohibiting the Department from finalizing the proposal are also pending in the House and Senate. These riders are likely to be debated as Congress attempts to pass an omnibus spending bill by the October 1, 2015, deadline.

In the short term, the Department has invited another round of comments. Comments will be due two weeks following the date the Department posts the transcripts from the recent public hearings. The Department is likely to take several weeks to post the transcripts.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions