The Board voted on the proposals largely along party lines except for OCC Acting Comptroller Michael Hsu, who declined to support either proposal, explaining that the agency should collect more information and consult with the other banking agencies before moving forward.
Our Take
Back to the drawing board. With the FDIC split over the dueling proposals, it is highly unlikely that a resolution will be reached by the end of this year. However, as each member of the Board is in agreement that oversight of asset managers’ influence over banks should be increased, we expect to see focus on this issue continue. It will take some time to formulate a proposal that could garner enough support to advance, potentially following a request for information and/or other forms of industry outreach. As Hsu appears to be the key vote, it may be necessary for a successful proposal to seek input from the Fed and OCC, which will also take time. The direction of this debate may change if the Administration were to change following the election, but a Republican-led Board would likely support a proposal closer to Director McKernan’s. Considering this inevitability, asset managers should review (a) existing passivity commitments to determine compliance and (b) whether it could be interpreted that they “direct or attempt to direct management or policies” under various definitions. They should also prepare for potential increased scrutiny following acquisitions of bank voting securities.
The investment advice fiduciary would then be subject to ERISA fiduciary requirements, including acting prudently, diversifying the assets of the plan to minimize the risk of large losses, acting solely in the interest of the plan participants and beneficiaries, avoiding investments with excessive fees, and refraining from prohibited transactions.
Our Take
The DOL fiduciary rule is back. This is now the third Administration to take a pass at updating the now 50-year-old ERISA requirements. Like the two previous iterations, this rule brings into scope one-time 401k rollover recommendations, but it goes further than PTE 2020-02 by broadening the definition of an investment advice fiduciary. Although advisers have likely been preparing for some version of these changes for the last eight years, they will need to ensure that their disclosures, operations, policies and procedures comply with the latest requirements. In particular, they will need to fully understand 401k rollover alternatives and document their determination that a particular recommendation is in the investor’s best interest. This will be a more substantial lift for firms or individuals that will be brought into scope by this rule, like insurance agents, as they will now need to meet a fiduciary standard for any advice they provide to retirement investors.
But for how long? With the industry now feeling empowered to move its rulemaking protests from comment letters to court, it is not a question of if but when this rule will face legal action. This may in turn result in a stay of the rule that would push back its effective dates. The looming election could then repeat the story of the last two fiduciary rule attempts - finalized in the last year of one Administration only to be revised by the next.
These notable developments hit our radar recently: